- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- 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.
I'm just answering a question, that's all.If we use the marble example, is your claim of it having been created out of nothing compatible with having an opened bag of new marbles in your pocket, and a receipt for them in your wallet?
So, like the universe, we have your claim of how and when it was created, no evidence (as you say) to support your claim, but there still exists evidence to the contrary?
You're welcome.3. Why not just make all the wicked people disappear? Why flood the entire earth?
3. Because had He just made them disappear, there would have been no chance for repentance and salvation on their part. One minute, they are living a productive life, the next moment they are in Hell. At least with the Flood, they had a chance to cry out for salvation, and I'm sure many did. As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.
Yes, the flood was a much better way to do it.
It is a shame that all of those children had to die that way, but, obviously, God was limited in His choices.
Maybe they are to big to fit in a little fox hole.There are no atheists in foxholes.
They do not have to anything. You just mention two popular theorys. No one questions that God uses DNA. We just question the theory of random mutation. Without random mutation then Darwins theory falls apart.If organisms do not evolve from other organisms than that means that they have to pop into existence.
They do not have to anything. You just mention two popular theorys. No one questions that God uses DNA. We just question the theory of random mutation. Without random mutation then Darwins theory falls apart.
They do not have to anything. You just mention two popular theorys. No one questions that God uses DNA. We just question the theory of random mutation. Without random mutation then Darwins theory falls apart.
1. God did not embed Murphy's Law into His creation. They turned out all (not almost all) wicked because of their freewill.
2. And what result was that? Yes, He could have produced robots, but He didn't. As the saying goes: If you love someone, set them free.
3. Because had He just made them disappear, there would have been no chance for repentance and salvation on their part. One minute, they are living a productive life, the next moment they are in Hell. At least with the Flood, they had a chance to cry out for salvation, and I'm sure many did. As the saying goes: There are no atheists in foxholes.
4. You keep bringing this 'deliberately designed' thing up. He designed it, we did the deliberating.
Noah was a sinner like you and I are.1. I specifically wrote "almost all" because I was under the impression Noah wasn't wicked and that is why he chose him.
And for the record, God created Adam & Eve perfect; His obligation, if there was one, ended after He told Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit.
Because Adam & Eve were not omniscient; and even if they were, they still chose to eat it.Why did he have to tell a perfect creation not to eat a forbidden fruit?
It was forbidden to Adam & Eve; that tree, in my opinion, was there for the others, not them.Why did he create a forbidden fruit?
Because Adam & Eve were not omniscient; and even if they were, they still chose to eat it.
It was forbidden to Adam & Eve; that tree, in my opinion, was there for the others, not them.
You have a strange sense of "perfect" then?In other words, Adam & Eve were not perfect.
Angels.Now what are those "others" that you mention? Animals? Other people?
I didn't see the word "omniscient" in your definition.Perfect: being entirely without fault or defect, flawless.
You call that strange?
Disobeying a direct order ≠ not being created perfect.Oh, so disobeying a direct order is not a fault then?
Disobeying a direct order ≠ not being created perfect.
They were perfect, until they disobeyed.
In other words, they were perfect, until they weren't.
And before you reply, keep in mind: God's obligation ended after His command.
The Fall is assumed by some to have occurred one year after the creation event; this means Adam & Eve were perfect for one year.
Speaking of Lucifer, the Bible says:
Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
There are several differences between 'no physical evidence' and 'did not happen'.
One possibility is the physical impact of an event. Some events have none. For example, earlier today, I had some chicken. While I was eating that chicken, I thought in my head, "Boy, this chicken is tasty." Now, a thought in my head leaves behind no physical evidence. But it happened.
Now, suppose I was eating chicken in an empty room. And suppose I said out loud, "Boy, this chicken is tasty." Would it leave behind physical evidence? Unless it was being recorded, after a moment or two, no. The sound would have stopped, the echoes ceased, the event just didn't have enough force/impact/whatever to leave a definite trace that I said "Boy, this chicken is tasty."
Now, an event that did NOT happen would have evidence of some kind that it didn't happen, as opposed to a lack of evidence. If I say that Russia launched seven nukes at Antarctica in 1970, you could examine Antarctica, do interviews, consult records, and find out that no such thing happened.
So, after listing my examples, I suppose the difference could be worded like this:
An event that leaves no physical evidence can only have a lack of physical evidence that it happened, while an event that did not happen can have either a lack of physical evidence that it happened OR physical evidence that it did not happen, and often both.
Metherion
Then forget the universe -- use a marble.
What is the difference between 'no evidence' and 'did not happen'?
The marble.
If we use the marble example, is your claim of it having been created out of nothing compatible with having an opened bag of new marbles in your pocket, and a receipt for them in your wallet?
So, like the universe, we have your claim of how and when it was created, no evidence (as you say) to support your claim, but there still exists evidence to the contrary?
I'm just answering a question, that's all.
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?