God created evil

[Derek]

We get it, you're an agnostic and that's cool but we get it. You're talking all day about nothing and coming to no conclusions.

I've come to the conclusion that you're incapable of debating your way out of a paper bag. Does that count? Seriously, you can't refute the things I say so you just start accusing me of being unable to come to a conclusion, so you use straw men arguments as a cover. Pathetic.

Do you have any of your own ideas?

[fezzyfestoon]

God created a perfect man. That man became evil on his own will. It was not God.

What I asked is how that evil option exists if God created everything and God is perfectly good.  Only God can create, man didn't come up with evil on its own.

Read what I posted in the creation thread of this forum. You'll find part of your answer there.

I didn't, and...

We get it, you're an agnostic and that's cool but we get it. You're talking all day about nothing and coming to no conclusions.

I've come to the conclusion that you're incapable of debating your way out of a paper bag. Does that count? Seriously, you can't refute the things I say so you just start accusing me of being unable to come to a conclusion, so you use straw men arguments as a cover. Pathetic.

Do you have any of your own ideas?

...what?

[Derek]

God created a perfect man. That man became evil on his own will. It was not God.

What I asked is how that evil option exists if God created everything and God is perfectly good.  Only God can create, man didn't come up with evil on its own.

Read what I posted in the creation thread of this forum. You'll find part of your answer there.

I didn't, and...

We get it, you're an agnostic and that's cool but we get it. You're talking all day about nothing and coming to no conclusions.

I've come to the conclusion that you're incapable of debating your way out of a paper bag. Does that count? Seriously, you can't refute the things I say so you just start accusing me of being unable to come to a conclusion, so you use straw men arguments as a cover. Pathetic.

Do you have any of your own ideas?

...what?

What are you confused about?

[fezzyfestoon]

The only thing that is inherently sinful is deviation from the will of God. The free choice and human faculties given to Adam resulted in his decision to disobey God. God knew this obviously, as he is omniscient, but that doesn't make him culpable. Having created something tabula rasa, he is free from the creation of sin.

I assume what you're referring to when you said that God created Lucifer as perfect, you're referring to Ezekiel 28(a use of the king of Tyre as an allegory for Satan and probably for mankind in general). It says that he was blameless until unrighteousness was found in him. I can only assume to take this as Satan, and humanity, being perfect in creation because he(or they) had not yet rebelled against God. If sin is a lack of obedience to God, and goodness/blamelessness/perfection is the lack of pride and disobedience, then everything God created at its outset is good.

Unlike Satan, however, God has chosen to save those humans who will accept the sacrifice found in Christ's atonement.

Some hyper-Calvinists (who consider Calvin a heretic, funnily enough), will argue that God is the author of sin, but unfortunately like so many groups out there they've taken certain Bible passages and twisted them for their own ends, such as those that speak of God hardening certain people's hearts, and particularly and frustratingly 2 Cor 4: 3-4. This passage is a good argument for authentic "Calvinism", but when read the wrong way can lead you to ridiculous conclusions that are out of step with the rest of scripture.

How did God not know that was there and who put it there if he didn't?  It's God's world, is it not?  So what other possibilities could his creations see but the way he did things?

What are you confused about?

How is that not clear?

[Derek]

The only thing that is inherently sinful is deviation from the will of God. The free choice and human faculties given to Adam resulted in his decision to disobey God. God knew this obviously, as he is omniscient, but that doesn't make him culpable. Having created something tabula rasa, he is free from the creation of sin.

I assume what you're referring to when you said that God created Lucifer as perfect, you're referring to Ezekiel 28(a use of the king of Tyre as an allegory for Satan and probably for mankind in general). It says that he was blameless until unrighteousness was found in him. I can only assume to take this as Satan, and humanity, being perfect in creation because he(or they) had not yet rebelled against God. If sin is a lack of obedience to God, and goodness/blamelessness/perfection is the lack of pride and disobedience, then everything God created at its outset is good.

Unlike Satan, however, God has chosen to save those humans who will accept the sacrifice found in Christ's atonement.

Some hyper-Calvinists (who consider Calvin a heretic, funnily enough), will argue that God is the author of sin, but unfortunately like so many groups out there they've taken certain Bible passages and twisted them for their own ends, such as those that speak of God hardening certain people's hearts, and particularly and frustratingly 2 Cor 4: 3-4. This passage is a good argument for authentic "Calvinism", but when read the wrong way can lead you to ridiculous conclusions that are out of step with the rest of scripture.

How did God not know that was there and who put it there if he didn't?  It's God's world, is it not?  So what other possibilities could his creations see but the way he did things?

What are you confused about?

How is that not clear?

I'm not sure what is or isn't clear you lost me there. God would be all knowing and know beforehand but if things were perfect all the time then we would have no free will and not recognize the greater good or God's perfection.

[fezzyfestoon]

The post I quoted:

Do you have any of your own ideas?

My asking of "what" was a pretty straight-forward request for clarification on where he demonstrated he didn't.

[Derek]

The post I quoted:

Do you have any of your own ideas?

My asking of "what" was a pretty straight-forward request for clarification on where he demonstrated he didn't.

I was talking to John Dibble from GA.

[fezzyfestoon]

The post I quoted:

Do you have any of your own ideas?

My asking of "what" was a pretty straight-forward request for clarification on where he demonstrated he didn't.

I was talking to John Dibble from GA.

YES. I KNOW. HENCE THE "HE".

[Derek]

The post I quoted:

Do you have any of your own ideas?

My asking of "what" was a pretty straight-forward request for clarification on where he demonstrated he didn't.

I was talking to John Dibble from GA.

YES. I KNOW. HENCE THE "HE".

Well he doesn't answer much all that he does is question everyone to the point of doubting whether or not something actually happened.

[fezzyfestoon]

Well he doesn't answer much all that he does is question everyone to the point of doubting whether or not something actually happened.

I'm not seeing how that connects to him allegedly not having any thoughts of his own.

[Derek]

Well he doesn't answer much all that he does is question everyone to the point of doubting whether or not something actually happened.

I'm not seeing how that connects to him allegedly not having any thoughts of his own.

He doesn't have much of his own either but let's give him a chance I find it unprofessional to chat about other bloggers like that on here.

[John Dibble]

Well he doesn't answer much all that he does is question everyone to the point of doubting whether or not something actually happened.

I'm not seeing how that connects to him allegedly not having any thoughts of his own.

He doesn't have much of his own either but let's give him a chance I find it unprofessional to chat about other bloggers like that on here.

I don't question everyone like I question you, just people who don't have their act together because they can't even make a coherent, logical argument. You're completely unable to back up your arguments with pretty much anything that comes close to being reasonable, so you falsely claim I have no ideas when I call you on it. The fact that I present other possibilities clearly shows I have ideas, but apparently you're too dense to realize that obvious fact. Your denseness is further demonstrated in your inability to immediately understand a simple question of "what?" - even a child would understand what was being asked there!

Also this isn't a blog. People here are not bloggers.

[Derek]

Well he doesn't answer much all that he does is question everyone to the point of doubting whether or not something actually happened.

I'm not seeing how that connects to him allegedly not having any thoughts of his own.

He doesn't have much of his own either but let's give him a chance I find it unprofessional to chat about other bloggers like that on here.

I don't question everyone like I question you, just people who don't have their act together because they can't even make a coherent, logical argument. You're completely unable to back up your arguments with pretty much anything that comes close to being reasonable, so you falsely claim I have no ideas when I call you on it. The fact that I present other possibilities clearly shows I have ideas, but apparently you're too dense to realize that obvious fact. Your denseness is further demonstrated in your inability to immediately understand a simple question of "what?" - even a child would understand what was being asked there!

Also this isn't a blog. People here are not bloggers.

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories. And yes you are a blogger. We are posters. You are a blogger.

[John Dibble]

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories.

This has nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. It has to do with holding claims to a reasonable standard of evidence. I've lost track of the number of times you've advanced your claims as better than others with no basis in reality whatsoever - it's all about you and what you prefer, not real evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That doesn't even remotely make sense - I don't even have a blog. How then can I be a blogger? I mean seriously, do you even think before you post this nonsense?

[Derek]

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories.

This has nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. It has to do with holding claims to a reasonable standard of evidence. I've lost track of the number of times you've advanced your claims as better than others with no basis in reality whatsoever - it's all about you and what you prefer, not real evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That doesn't even remotely make sense - I don't even have a blog. How then can I be a blogger? I mean seriously, do you even think before you post this nonsense?

Again the evidence I put for God is the fact that anything exists.

[John Dibble]

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories.

This has nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. It has to do with holding claims to a reasonable standard of evidence. I've lost track of the number of times you've advanced your claims as better than others with no basis in reality whatsoever - it's all about you and what you prefer, not real evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That doesn't even remotely make sense - I don't even have a blog. How then can I be a blogger? I mean seriously, do you even think before you post this nonsense?

Again the evidence I put for God is the fact that anything exists.

Insufficient. Existence only proves existence at best, not anything else.

And answer the damn question about the blogger nonsense. Seriously, if you want to keep dodging questions then you're not going to earn any credibility here on this forum.

[Derek]

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories.

This has nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. It has to do with holding claims to a reasonable standard of evidence. I've lost track of the number of times you've advanced your claims as better than others with no basis in reality whatsoever - it's all about you and what you prefer, not real evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That doesn't even remotely make sense - I don't even have a blog. How then can I be a blogger? I mean seriously, do you even think before you post this nonsense?

Again the evidence I put for God is the fact that anything exists.

Insufficient. Existence only proves existence at best, not anything else.

And answer the damn question about the blogger nonsense. Seriously, if you want to keep dodging questions then you're not going to earn any credibility here on this forum.

I'm not answering a question that splits hairs between bloggers and us forum community members. As far as existence, if you think that something can just appear out of nothing then you go ahead.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories.

This has nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. It has to do with holding claims to a reasonable standard of evidence. I've lost track of the number of times you've advanced your claims as better than others with no basis in reality whatsoever - it's all about you and what you prefer, not real evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That doesn't even remotely make sense - I don't even have a blog. How then can I be a blogger? I mean seriously, do you even think before you post this nonsense?

Again the evidence I put for God is the fact that anything exists.

Insufficient. Existence only proves existence at best, not anything else.

And answer the damn question about the blogger nonsense. Seriously, if you want to keep dodging questions then you're not going to earn any credibility here on this forum.

I'm not answering a question that splits hairs between bloggers and us forum community members. As far as existence, if you think that something can just appear out of nothing then you go ahead.

     But how is it any more logical to say that God appeared out of nothing?

[Derek]

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories.

This has nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. It has to do with holding claims to a reasonable standard of evidence. I've lost track of the number of times you've advanced your claims as better than others with no basis in reality whatsoever - it's all about you and what you prefer, not real evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That doesn't even remotely make sense - I don't even have a blog. How then can I be a blogger? I mean seriously, do you even think before you post this nonsense?

Again the evidence I put for God is the fact that anything exists.

Insufficient. Existence only proves existence at best, not anything else.

And answer the damn question about the blogger nonsense. Seriously, if you want to keep dodging questions then you're not going to earn any credibility here on this forum.

I'm not answering a question that splits hairs between bloggers and us forum community members. As far as existence, if you think that something can just appear out of nothing then you go ahead.

     But how is it any more logical to say that God appeared out of nothing?

By definition God is infinite. That which is infinite does not have a beginning or an end. That which is finite, meaning all we know in the material realm, must have a start to it. It's hard to explain and understand, but as finite beings we will never fully be able to comprehend how the infinite is truly infinite.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories.

This has nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. It has to do with holding claims to a reasonable standard of evidence. I've lost track of the number of times you've advanced your claims as better than others with no basis in reality whatsoever - it's all about you and what you prefer, not real evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That doesn't even remotely make sense - I don't even have a blog. How then can I be a blogger? I mean seriously, do you even think before you post this nonsense?

Again the evidence I put for God is the fact that anything exists.

Insufficient. Existence only proves existence at best, not anything else.

And answer the damn question about the blogger nonsense. Seriously, if you want to keep dodging questions then you're not going to earn any credibility here on this forum.

I'm not answering a question that splits hairs between bloggers and us forum community members. As far as existence, if you think that something can just appear out of nothing then you go ahead.

     But how is it any more logical to say that God appeared out of nothing?

By definition God is infinite. That which is infinite does not have a beginning or an end. That which is finite, meaning all we know in the material realm, must have a start to it. It's hard to explain and understand, but as finite beings we will never fully be able to comprehend how the infinite is truly infinite.

     But some religions have gods that die, such as Balder in Norse mythology. I would think a proper definition of God would also have to include these deities, which would preclude infinity from defining Godhood.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well a proper anthropological definition would, PiT.  I don't think that's what he's talking about.

Anyways, I think Derek is on the right here.  The burden of proof is on the nonbelievers; they're the ones committing the hypocrisy of denying an infinite God while accepting a metaphysic in which reality itself "appeared out of nothing."

     But would that really be hypocrisy if the person in question did not specifically deny the notion of a deity that is infinite, claiming that the idea of an infinite God was absurd?

[Derek]

A non-infine God within the context of Western metaphysics (and make no mistake, we're all Westerners here) is absurd.

Yes a finite god is an oxymoron.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A non-infine God within the context of Western metaphysics (and make no mistake, we're all Westerners here) is absurd.

     I phrased that badly. What I meant to ask was, how would it be hypocritical to accept that the universe appeared out of nothing if one did not believe in God, but for reasons unrelated to the issue of his infinity?

[Derek]

A non-infine God within the context of Western metaphysics (and make no mistake, we're all Westerners here) is absurd.

     I phrased that badly. What I meant to ask was, how would it be hypocritical to accept that the universe appeared out of nothing if one did not believe in God, but for reasons unrelated to the issue of his infinity?

Stop thinking of God as the deity with white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. God is simply the first cause, first mover. Even if that's matter! Geez

[Associate Justice PiT]

A non-infine God within the context of Western metaphysics (and make no mistake, we're all Westerners here) is absurd.

     I phrased that badly. What I meant to ask was, how would it be hypocritical to accept that the universe appeared out of nothing if one did not believe in God, but for reasons unrelated to the issue of his infinity?

Stop thinking of God as the deity with white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. God is simply the first cause, first mover. Even if that's matter! Geez

     My apologies, it is merely that people in our society usually use the term God to refer to the Abrahamic God. I would suggest using a term that is less likely to be mistaken as referring to the Abrahamic God.