- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,270
- 52,669
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Correct.But chose not to.
Evolution has nothing to do with whether god exists or not.
I agree with you 100% but....atheists have a tendency to make it the central argument turning it into a philosophical argument. Not here, but in one forum in the space of one month, atheists said that God does not exist 173 times. Now, whatever you believe, it is not something that is shared by many other atheists. I guess it is the fallback position when you can't mount a rational arguement for your dogma.
If God is the omnipotent creator, then he is necessarily responsible for it all. Including evil, brutality, whatever.
If he created Satan and human, knowing what they WOULD do, then he brought sin into the world, simply by choosing not to create a world in which that doesn't happen.
It has always boggled my mind that the proponents of an omnipotent, omniscient, creator, cannot see this, and insist on asserting that humans are culpable for doing exactly what God intended them to do.
I find it is typically Christians (specifically, creationists) who bring up the topic of God when discussing evolution.
If you don't understand God or his creation, then I guess that is how you would think so you are saying nothing more than is to be expected. When your worldview is that God does not exist, your ideology is obviously going to be influenced by this otherwise there is no point in believing that God does not exist.
If I may I will explain what the truth is from a God does exist perspective. it would have been very easy and less confronting if God created mankind and then said to them "You are going to do whatever I tell you to do. You have no free will to make any decision because I do not want you to screw up what I have created. It is my way or no way."
Because God is all seeing, he did know what was going to happen, but he chose not to intervene and turn mankind into robots. The fact is, only robots like being robots for the simple reason that they are robots, not people. I have yet to meet anyone who would rather be a robot than a free spirited human.
When mankind started going astray he decided not to intervene preferring to allow mankind to exercise his free will. I am sure you appreciate that because is that was not the case, you would not be an atheist. It was man's choice to sin and God chose not to stop him. The nature of free will.
The fact of free will does not imply that God intended them to do what they did. he gave them a choice and refused to intervene in that choice.
And I find it typically that atheists and evolutionists who bring up the existence of God when discussing evolution.
No. It's a hypothetical. IF a god is described with the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and the creator of the universe, then such a god is responsible for the outcome of that universe. The good and the bad.
"Because God is all seeing, he did know what was going to happen, but he chose not to intervene and turn mankind into robots."
What you don't understand is that an omniscient, omnipotent creator, based on the interactions of those attributes, would not be able to refrain from intervening; it's INHERENT in his creation. If he chose, out of infinite options, to create a universe in which I would not believe, then he intervened, UPON CREATION OF this universe.
And yet, the very thread you are posting in is by a Christian who brought up the topic of God and evolution, in the very first post.
I understand that it is a hypothetical if you are arguing from a God does not exist mind set, but you have to realise that your mindset is not necessarily that of the majority on this forum. In fact it is not the mindset of the majority of people on the planet as those who believe God exist outnumber the atheist viewpoint by vast numbers. Atheists are a very small minority if you add up all those in the world that are not atheists.
That being the case there is nothing hypothetical about God existing or not existing and of you believe that God does not exist he is not responsible for anything that happens and that is a fact. In fact, arguing from a hypothetical point of view is a bit of a waste of time as you are arguing from a non event perspective.
What you don't understand is that you cannot understand God with a finite mind which you have if you reject God and his salvation. Even as a believer I cannot understand God with my finite mind. Because I am who I am I like to think I know God and can work him out but I can't without the help of the Holy Spirit. That means there isn't much hope for you to understand using a finite mind that is an enemy of God.
The choice to intervene or not intervene is God's and God's alone as he can see everything from A to Z. We cannot do that so to try and understand a few years in the light of eternity is foolhardy. Whilst it may be a problem to you what God does or does not do, for the believer who studies the word of God in depth there is much more to it than meets the eye. I am focused on the whole picture not just one aspect of it.
Expecting God to do what we want him to do is not wise as we are not much good at anything we do. We only have to look at the mess we have made of the world to know this.
One final question. Would you appreciate not being allowed to be an atheist?
My illustration was to show that a god with the attributes you have given him doesn't make sense. It creates paradoxes. If you can get passed that...well, lucky for you.
Would I appreciate not being allowed to be an atheist? Depends on what you mean by that. I'll start with what I figure you're getting at....If God is in fact real, then absolutely I would appreciate it if he made himself absolutely visible to everyone.
If it was human bigotry and government sanctioned that atheism is illegal, then, no, I would not appreciate it.
I don't have to believe a hypothetical in order for it to be useful. Hypothetical situations are SUPPOSED to be a fictitious description, which elicits contemplation about a key point.
I don't have to believe a hypothetical in order for it to be useful. Hypothetical situations are SUPPOSED to be a fictitious description, which elicits contemplation about a key point.
That is 100% true if you care to look at the facts. One who believes in evolution believes that everything came from nothing. Nothing and no one is behind everything. It is all a matter of chance and happenstance. As someone once said it is "from goo to you via the zoo." Now if that doesn't require faith I don't know what does.
It doesn't take much to work out that evolution is not scientific, it is philosophical. Behind most discussion of the topic is a claim that God does not exist which is constantly brought up by those arguing for evolution. As soon as you bring God into it it becomes a philosophical discussion. Keeping it scientific means keeping God out of it but that is fraught with danger as the arguement for evolution seems to revolve around God's existence.
In fact when you enter the discussion of evolution, in most cases the person fighting for it does't know what they are trying to defend. Their scientific knowledge is minimal so they fall back on the "God doesn't exist" argument. You then ask them to prove that God doesn't exist and they admit that they can't because as they say you cannot prove a negative. They then get on their high horse and say where is your evidence that God does exist. Even that question reduces evolution to a philosophical discussion.
Furthermore, without fail when evidence is presented even from a scientific perspective, they start to rubbish what has been presented with innate responses which is their way of saying we cannot prove you wrong so they have to resort to bluster and bullying.
Now I know I am on dangerous ground when I say that because evolutionists don't like to be called out and exposed for what they are so they get in touch with the moderators and complain about me flaming and personally attacking them but that is not the case as I am talking generically so no one can say I had a go at them.
That is 100% true if you care to look at the facts. One who believes in evolution believes that everything came from nothing. Nothing and no one is behind everything. It is all a matter of chance and happenstance. As someone once said it is "from goo to you via the zoo." Now if that doesn't require faith I don't know what does.
t doesn't take much to work out that evolution is not scientific, it is philosophical. Behind most discussion of the topic is a claim that God does not exist which is constantly brought up by those arguing for evolution. As soon as you bring God into it it becomes a philosophical discussion. Keeping it scientific means keeping God out of it but that is fraught with danger as the arguement for evolution seems to revolve around God's existence.
In fact when you enter the discussion of evolution, in most cases the person fighting for it does't know what they are trying to defend. Their scientific knowledge is minimal so they fall back on the "God doesn't exist" argument. You then ask them to prove that God doesn't exist and they admit that they can't because as they say you cannot prove a negative. They then get on their high horse and say where is your evidence that God does exist. Even that question reduces evolution to a philosophical discussion.
Furthermore, without fail when evidence is presented even from a scientific perspective, they start to rubbish what has been presented with innate responses which is their way of saying we cannot prove you wrong so they have to resort to bluster and bullying.
Now I know I am on dangerous ground when I say that because evolutionists don't like to be called out and exposed for what they are so they get in touch with the moderators and complain about me flaming and personally attacking them but that is not the case as I am talking generically so no one can say I had a go at them.
Yes.Hypothetically, would you say that a particular universe would have to be either with sin, or without sin? Is that a solid dichotomy, in your opinion?
Because God is all seeing, he did know what was going to happen, but he chose not to intervene and turn mankind into robots. The fact is, only robots like being robots for the simple reason that they are robots, not people. I have yet to meet anyone who would rather be a robot than a free spirited human.
When mankind started going astray he decided not to intervene preferring to allow mankind to exercise his free will. I am sure you appreciate that because is that was not the case, you would not be an atheist. It was man's choice to sin and God chose not to stop him. The nature of free will.
This is quite a claim. Please give us some sort of evidence to show that what you are reporting here is indeed true.To quote one example, I know there are atheists who swear by the APA for their beliefs about homosexuality (born that way) but what they don't tell you is what a former president of the APA said which was that the APA had been hijacked by homosexual activists and what was presented by them reflected homosexual dogma, not scientific fact.
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?