Creationists: How exactly did the fall of man change biological organisms?

[Job 33:6]

Your idea of God rest heavily on choice and freewill. But thier problems with both of these for example a atheist can't choose something thier not convinced exists therefore God never really gave us much of a choice. A secound problem I see is "Believe in me in this specific way or suffer" isn't really free choice either that's an ultimatum. And finally do we really choose our religion?

Some people don't get a choice to truly know God in life (though presumably one would in the afterlife). I wouldn't consider that an argument against God. It's just the way the world is. Some amazonian in the middle of a forest, isolated from the world for example, would never hear of Jesus. Or perhaps someone might avoid Jesus as a product of misinformation about him. And it just is what it is, it happens.

It's important to note that people aren't punished by God souly for disbelieving (why would God punish some random amazonian that never knew him?). But rather it's transgression of God's law that results in reception of God's wrath. And this transgression can occur in believers and unbelievers alike. Likewise, believers and unbelievers alike could follow God's law. It's just that those that do follow the law tend to simply call themselves believers. The book of Romans discusses that those without the law are/were judged outside of the law (don't recall the verse off the top of my head).

 

[Job 33:6]

Some people don't get a choice to truly know God in life (though presumably one would in the afterlife). I wouldn't consider that an argument against God. It's just the way the world is. Some amazonian in the middle of a forest, isolated from the world for example, would never hear of Jesus. Or perhaps someone might avoid Jesus as a product of misinformation about him. And it just is what it is, it happens.

It's important to note that people aren't punished by God souly for disbelieving (why would God punish some random amazonian that never knew him?). But rather it's transgression of God's law that results in reception of God's wrath. And this transgression can occur in believers and unbelievers alike. Likewise, believers and unbelievers alike could follow God's law. It's just that those that do follow the law tend to simply call themselves believers. The book of Romans discusses that those without the law are/were judged outside of the law (don't recall the verse off the top of my head).

Romans 2:12-13

 

[Kylie]

I'm sure he could, but he won't since if he said one thing and kept changing his mind that would make him a liar.

How does one become a liar just because they changed their mind? I've changed my mind about lots of things. I once said that I would prefer to stay in north Queensland (I used to live in Cairns), but now I'm very glad I live in Sydney. Does that mean I was lying when I said I preferred Queensland? Of course not.

A change of mind is not a lie.

 

[Kylie]

I think this is exactly it. Could God create a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat? I think the simple answer is no (maybe coffee thinks otherwise but I don't think God could make a triangle with 4 corners for example). Exactly why God couldn't defy logic I suppose is up for discussion, but when we think about even just natural suffering, I would say that suffering simply has to exist in creation. Or alternatively, man's free will to reject God or Gods laws would have to be taken away.

Let's say we consider murder a sin, that if committed would be an act in rejection of God (as scripture states). If God were to let someone commit murder, then the act would result in suffering. Alternatively, God would have to remove the person's ability to choose to commit the act (and not only would God have to remove mankind's freewill, God would have to remove the free will of everything that could ever have free will as well).

And I don't think that there is an in-between option.

@FrumiousBandersnatch gave some interesting ideas for in-between options with respect to my bank robbery analogy. Maybe my money would disintegrate once I had finished robbing the bank and walked away. But even this seemingly "in-between" option would still involve suffering, as I excitingly open my bag to find not money, but perhaps just dust blowing in the wind, I myself would experience sorrow, a hurt ego and suffering as I gained awareness that my hard efforts and stolen cash would have been for nothing.

So either this suffering exists, or God takes away my free will. I don't think there could be a logical in-between option, but for God perhaps not to create anything at all.

Okay, so you think God can't do things that are logically impossible. Now let me ask you this: Did God create logic?

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay, so you think God can't do things that are logically impossible. Now let me ask you this: Did God create logic?

I'll answer no, because I don't think that logic is itself a thing. Did God create people who practice logic, sure.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll answer no, because I don't think that logic is itself a thing. Did God create people who practice logic, sure.

With no intention of sarcasm, but perhaps a hint of irony, that doesn't sound logical.

 

[Job 33:6]

With no intention of sarcasm, but perhaps a hint of irony, that doesn't sound logical.

It's like asking if God created science. I think that there are words that we use to describe people investigating things. Though I would think it is the people that were created, whereas a word may be a word, but it itself isn't really anything beyond that. Did God create a word spelled "Logic", yea sure. But is logic a thing beyond a word? I'm not so sure, or rather I don't think so.

It's like the discussion of numbers as well.

I'd be curious as to why this view might be illogical.

 

[coffee4u]

Threat or warning, my point remains. I don't think you have a free choice with a metaphorical gun to your head, there must be a neutral option, neither for nor against. The 'no neutrals' policy is a fascist trope.

This is related to the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism/agnosticism. The former doesn't believe in a god or gods because they believe that a god or gods don't exist, the latter doesn't believe in a god or gods because they don't know if a god or gods exist. Hence my point that an omnipotent all-benevolent God should have both the desire and the capacity to make itself incontrovertibly known; i.e. there should be no atheists or agnostics. You have to believe in something before you can reject what it offers.

God through the ages had made himself more visible. He did many miracles for the ancient Israelite's and they still couldn't hold onto their faith long enough for Mosses to get down the mountain with the Ten Commandments, they were off melting gold into a calf idol.
After the crucifixion that changed. God does still show himself but you have to be looking and aware because he is not putting on a floor show like appearing in a burning bush.

Atheists are a tiny minority. If the data is correct, 7% of the world, so 93% believe in something. They believe because the spirit realm can be experienced.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
As an atheist you have effectively shut off seeing where God is at work.

I know, that was my point. I'll repeat it: an all-powerful, all-benevolent creator, making creatures in its own image could make them too fundamentally benevolent without depriving them of free will - there are even some real people that are apparently free of hate and malice (one person I know appears to have sadness and compassion instead). These people have free will but hate and malice simply don't occur to them. It's possible they do occasionally feel hate or malice, but the point is that if a few members of a species so prone to hate and malice have the freedom to make the choices they want, and what they want rarely or never involves hate or malice, then an all-powerful, all-benevolent creator could easily have made all his creatures like that. Instead, we have creatures that reflect precisely what we'd expect from an evolutionary heritage.

And this is how it will be in the new world, but it isn't time for that yet. God says the 'full number' of gentiles must come in and then one third of the Jewish nation before this occurs.
God can't force someones free will to be loving and kind. Free will is not truly free if you restrict what someone feels. People have to be completely free to feel and experience everything. Once we choose God then he sends the Holy Spirit that grows us to be more loving and kind.

I can honestly say I don't feel hate or malice. Not for many years. Anger and frustration sure, but that tends to be more the kind where family presses my buttons.

I disagree that humans reflect what we would expect from evolutionary heritage.
The vast majority recognize that there is a spirit world and most believe in a God. Even if the belief goes no further it is there, no matter what country you go to and this was in place before countries had contact with each other. When explorers landed they would find established religion.
Why would we go out of our way to help when it is of no gain to ourselves? For example raising money for charities, nursing the old and dying, people going overseas to help countries in Africa drill for water. How does helping the weak and infirm show evolution when evolution is about survival of the fittest?

It may have been written, but clearly, the claim is totally unfounded - there are many millions of people who have never heard of the Abrahamic God, millions that have only heard about it as something that other people believe in, and millions more that are aware of the story and the claims, but find it no more believable than any of the thousands of other god beliefs through the ages.

At the end the signs that were given will be made clear. Each sign that was shown but chosen to be ignored, waved away or rejected. Those who received little will likewise be judged little. God alone knows what someones heart feels. Even if that person did not directly hear, they will be judged on whatever light they did receive.

 

[jacknife]

Some people don't get a choice to truly know God in life (though presumably one would in the afterlife). I wouldn't consider that an argument against God. It's just the way the world is. Some amazonian in the middle of a forest, isolated from the world for example, would never hear of Jesus. Or perhaps someone might avoid Jesus as a product of misinformation about him. And it just is what it is, it happens.

It's important to note that people aren't punished by God souly for disbelieving (why would God punish some random amazonian that never knew him?). But rather it's transgression of God's law that results in reception of God's wrath. And this transgression can occur in believers and unbelievers alike. Likewise, believers and unbelievers alike could follow God's law. It's just that those that do follow the law tend to simply call themselves believers. The book of Romans discusses that those without the law are/were judged outside of the law (don't recall the verse off the top of my head).

Not really what i was trying to get at but can i ask you something? When you say God gave us a "choice to believe in him" what do ypu mean? Or am i misunderstanding you?

 

[coffee4u]

You cannot choose something you don't believe in.

But you don't wish to believe. If you actually wished to believe you would seek out God with an open mind. But since your mind is not open you will see nothing, but then complain about seeing nothing. You don't see because you already decided that he isn't.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

 

[pitabread]

If you actually wished to believe you would seek out God with an open mind.

This sounds like the catch-22 of "in order to believe you have to first believe."

But since your mind is not open you will see nothing, but then complain about seeing nothing. You don't see because you already decided that he isn't.

Alternatively, maybe one's mind is open but there isn't anything to see.

 

[coffee4u]

Your idea of God rest heavily on choice and freewill. But thier problems with both of these for example a atheist can't choose something thier not convinced exists therefore God never really gave us much of a choice. A secound problem I see is "Believe in me in this specific way or suffer" isn't really free choice either that's an ultimatum. And finally do we really choose our religion?

I will assume this is directed at me?

An atheist has already made a choice. Their choice is that God doesn't exist and so by definition they won't see God.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
He doesn't reward those who don't believe he exists, who ignore any sign that they are sent, who don't seek him.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd be curious as to why this view might be illogical.

Me also!

 

[Ophiolite]

I'd be curious as to why this view might be illogical.

Because of the following.
https://k2s.cc/file/9d5aaab03fa6e/Playboy_USA_1956.part1.rar?site=vipergirls.to

Did God create a word spelled "Logic", yea sure. But is logic a thing beyond a word? I'm not so sure, or rather I don't think so.

If, for sake of argument, I concede the existence of the Christian God then he did not create the word logic, but the ability of humans to learn, employ and develop language, including the word "logic". However, he did create relationships between concepts, including those described within the discipline of logic. The expression of these relationships in language is a human invention, the underlying relationships are not.
Can I demonstrate this to be the case? Perhaps, but as it might well involve the use of logic that would leave us on a fairground roundabout.

 

[pitabread]

An atheist has already made a choice. Their choice is that God doesn't exist and so by definition they won't see God.

Disbelief is not a choice.

Do you think you could choose to disbelieve in god?

 

[Job 33:6]

Not really what i was trying to get at or mr.bear. but can i ask you something? When you say God gave us a "choice to believe in him" what do ypu mean? Or am i misunderstanding you?

Hm, nice question. It may be better worded to say that people have a choice to follow God, or a choice to reject God. If the individual hasn't received the gospel or been taught of God, then they would presumably be in a gray area and then would fall in line with Romans 2:12-13.

 

[coffee4u]

How does one become a liar just because they changed their mind? I've changed my mind about lots of things. I once said that I would prefer to stay in north Queensland (I used to live in Cairns), but now I'm very glad I live in Sydney. Does that mean I was lying when I said I preferred Queensland? Of course not.

A change of mind is not a lie.

Because God is unchanging in what he thinks.
Numbers 23:19
God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

To change ones mind is a human attribute and part of your fee will.

 

[coffee4u]

Disbelief is not a choice.

Do you think you could choose to disbelieve in god?

Disbelief is a choice in the factor of having an open or closed mind. When the mind is closed it won't even hear or look at any other possibility. So the first step would be an open mind to the possibility of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because of the following.
If, for sake of argument, I concede the existence of the Christian God then he did not create the word logic, but the ability of humans to learn, employ and develop language, including the word "logic". However, he did create relationships between concepts, including those described within the discipline of logic. The expression of these relationships in language is a human invention, the underlying relationships are not.
Can I demonstrate this to be the case? Perhaps, but as it might well involve the use of logic that would leave us on a fairground roundabout.

Well if we go back to the original question of if God created logic, maybe the question itself should be clarified then. Did God create a working relationship between things?

I think that my answer would still be no because if God created logic, it might suggest that God were outside of logic or not subject to it. I don't think that God could create a square with 3 sides. I would think that the only squares God can create are the only squares that can exist. 4 sided ones.

 

[pitabread]

Disbelief is a choice in the factor of having an open or closed mind. When the mind is closed it won't even hear or look at any other possibility. So the first step would be an open mind to the possibility of God.

You didn't answer my question.

Could you choose to disbelieve in god? Yes or no?