Theists (specifically Monotheists) usually assume both the morality, omniscience, and omnipotence of God. With these in mind, that such a being would be aware of the objectively "best" (here meaning morally correct for all involved) course of events that could take place, and how to cause this chain of happenings to manifest. As this being is also moral and omnipotent, it possesses both the will and the means to do so. With these starting assumptions (and the assumed existence of God itself) in mind, it follows that all the events of history have been the objectively "best" possible for all involved.
Interesting thought. I had come to a similar conclusion, but my only problem is that we cannot know what God deems as "best". What if God believes that the existence of free will and the ability to exercise that will is "best"? This would mean that the "best" possible outcome for his creation is for them to make their own decisions regardless if they are against his commands and beliefs.
Also, following up with the ways people see God, what if God is not omniscient or omnipotent? What cannot test God's abilities or measure them (another reason why I question the faith sometimes). My reasoning above may be flawed and if it is do not be afraid to point it out or give your own thoughts about it. This is certainly an interesting topic.
I meant that someone can trust the media. You can trust them. Allow me to restate my position. You can place your trust in the media. That is an option anyone can make. All media isn't false. All media isn't truthful. You have to believe what you want and trust who you want. So yes, the media "can" be trusted.
That would depend on how you approach the question. If trying a new religion one could say that it opens minds. It opens the person to a new realm of beliefs, morals, new concepts, etc. It can also be said that religion blinds people to the world around them. It blinds people to primarily scientific based explanation of the world, but mostly to anything that doesn't even appear to align with their religion. Religion can blind people from the opinions of others and possibly even the person hood of another.
My mother demands the toilet paper be under. Anything else and a fuse is broken.
Didn't give me the choice to debate with you on your last debate. Seems a little hypocritical, yes?
I don't see how anything you just posted had any relevance to what I said. No offense of course.
As I stated, cognition doesn't develop until late into the pregnancy. Are you suggesting a hypothetical situation where that isn't the case? If so, once cognition has developed I'm against abortion, regardless of how far along the pregnancy is.
I was curious if you were very strict on the line of cognition. I see you are. Thank you for your response. I typically hold the same belief.
That is also a really good question. From reading it would seem that Eve at least had some form of knowledge. I am not sure about how much.
Very interesting position. So as long as the fetus has no signs of cognition abortion acceptable in your eyes? Also, if I may ask, let's say a fetus is aborted while in has cognition, but isn't to far in the pregnancy, how does that affect your view?
No. Religion tends to simply place firm beliefs on what what is moral and what isn't. Religion usually depends on morality.
Worshipping an egg seems rather weird wouldn't you say? Allow me to clarify myself. Before you became you are today you were an egg. Once you were fertilized (sperm) you began to undergo changes. That is the very moment your physical existence started. Some may say you always existed as an egg, but it makes more sense to say you began existing when your cells first started multiplying.
You existed when your cells began to multiply. Your existence began when the egg became fertilized and underwent changes.
How can I expect my child to do good things if she doesn't know the difference between good and evil?
That's a good question. Interestingly Eve knew what seemed good to her. Eve seems capable of discerning good food from bad food. I'd imagine they understood the concept of good and bad and could apply it on a much greater scale. I could be wrong of course.
I believe their intentions and reasons behind their actions are what Christians use to define them as good or evil.
I understand. I was just curious about the reasoning behind your statement. Thank you for your answers.
If you want to ban men and men kissing, you have to also want to ban men and women kissing, because otherwise you're nothing more than an ignorant and prejudiced tool.
So since the only difference is the gender/sex wouldn't it be okay to not show a type of kissing to your child if you dont believe is men kissing men and women kissing women? What if in their mind their intentions are perceived as good?
Don't see the issue. If you want to ban gay kissing scenes, you have to want to ban all kissing scenes whatsoever.
Why is that?
First, for a community that wants acceptance and to be seen as anyone else, stop with the incessant labeling; and if you feel you need a label, BTQ should be sufficient.
I assumed labeling was natural. I thought everything was practically labeled. Otherwise nothing has a name or title.
How do you have free will without good and evil? How does good and evil prompt free will?
Then don't wander around this site acting like a Christian. If you are one act like it.
Interesting. We are all sinners, therefore naturally evil. Does that warrant me to insult you? Your goal, as a Christian, is to guide the lost and help the weak. Not insult them.
Interesting you say that. Your insults are sadly shy of truth.
There is no reason for God to intervene in any earthly suffering.
Of course. I have questioned my beliefs before. I like to give any evidence presented a chance. I'd like to know as much as possible and make a cboice to follow, or not follow, a religion based on all the information I have.
I've learned quite a bit. I appreciate your responses. Helped me think a little deeper about this subject.
I guess it would be quite difficult. I guess this debate comes down to viewpoints and opinions.
I don't think God himself is limited by anything. I think our knowledge of God comes from our distinction between good and evil. So that we may know his nature. If God didn't create good or evil he would still be God. I think these are concepts that help us understand his nature and our own nature.
The way I have always believed it is that God has always made the cboice of doing evil an option. One can either do good works or evil works. The Garden of Eden was corrupted by the temptation of man and the disobedience of man despite God's word. I am not sure why God had allowed it (If we believe God is omniscient).
Okay I think I am following. So in order to understand the performer one must understand good and evil. Which means that the understanding supersedes the performer. Does that not just make the performer greater than what the understanding is? To me it seems like a requirement to understand the ne t step. Just like knowing addition before multiplication. However, I may be wrong.
I see. Would there be a way to objectify our views on his actions and determine if they are moral or not? I feel like it would end up with us arguing about what we think is good and what we think is evil.
I'm sorry. You have lost me. If you wouldn't mind going more in depth about what you just said I'd appreciate it.
Interesting. Shall we use examples of his works and compare them? Or speak of his morality in general?
Media "can" be trusted. Media will always cater towards the audience. Cater towards views. Even if what is shown is shy of truth.
God is good for what he has done in comparison to evil. Your statement is as valid as mine. I just wanted to say that the creation of something doesn't necessitate nature.
Nothing exists higher than God. The creation of good and evil seems rather necessary for one to understand the world around them. Also to understand one's own will.
The creation of evil does not necessarily make God evil. If there is good then there must be something to make that known. There msu be some sort of comparison. If there is heat then there must be cold. In order to understand sadness you must understand happiness. In order to understand good one must know evil.
Sadly it's a very common thing among Christians. My friends, family, and even members act that way and I find it odd. I don't see how Christians complain when they refuse to have a civil conversation. Even when there are disagreements Christians should be able to learn and think about the information they received instead of calling it blasphemy.
A lot of Christians try to hard to "prove" their case. A lot of Christians also tend to ignore what their opponent says. I also notice on this site that a lot of Christian debaters are the ones to start the name calling. I don't understand why some Christians dislike having evidence brought against them or choose to ignore things. I am a Christian and I love to hear the responses non-believers give in debates. I feel like if more Christians tried conversing more often than babbling non-believers wouldn't have a problem with us.
People hate God for many reason. He is supposed to be there for them. Comfort them. Bless them. Sooth them with his presence. However, God, and most religions, are faith based. You must have faith that God loves you. That God is there for you. For a non believer it is very easy to assume God doesnt exist because nothing can be done to prove his existence. People are prone to believe in things that have been proven to them and that's completely normal. As a Christian your goal is to show them that through faith God is there and if that isn't accepted then the most you can do is pray for them. Their reasoning is perfectly logical.
How would you like him to show himself to you? I am very interested in your response.
As a Christian I don't see the necessity of this post. If you have a problem with the people on the site then that usually means that the debate went poorly. If you don't like the debate you aren't obligated to participate.
Well I am sorry that those Christians have upset you. They should be more professional since they are on a debate site.
I also have the ability to cognize and leave an interactvwith the world around me. The world can also inteact with me. I am present and can be given rights. A bunch of cells should be given rights until it can show signs of cognition.
If I have to give rights to a bundle of cells then there is a problem. If thats the case then bacteria has rights.
How can I fight for the rights of a person that doesn't exist yet?
Although I agree if you make such a statement you will have to convince people that this is the truth. Which is very difficult.
Well banning junk food in schools is just limiting the food children can eat. We would havevto make unnecessary guidelines for schools to follow that many people would disagree with.
I guess there could be unintended child abuse with feeding your child, but doesn't that just sound odd to you? Maybe I just can't grasp the entirety of the situation. If I haven't made sense then I apologize. I respect your opinion, I just can't see its practicality.
As I pointed out what an adult does to their own body regarding abusing it is indeed their choice ; not so with a child who relies on his parents to look after him /her .
I am fully aware. However, there are still many circumstances that would warrant the banning of junk food ridiculous. We also do not know the intent of the parent as that would define if it's abuse or not.
Why are you making commentary on something which you say has nothing to do with you ?
What has nothing to do with me is the choice of food provided to a random child.
I am fully aware of what people say about eating healthy. I am also aware of what people say about cigarettes. I am also aware of what people say about doing drugs. All are "bad" for you, but it is up to the discretion of the person who participates in eating unhealthy, or smoking, or doing drugs. Now I know that drugs and cigarettes are on a different level than food, but the reason we don't really bat an eye is because we have no control over others and their choices do not affect us. What someone feeds their child has nothing to do with me at all. I do not know the situations that strike the parent either so who am I to judge their eating habits?
This would imply that the intent of the parent is that of harm. I believe that plays a big factor as abuse typically has ill intent. I do not see ill intent in feeding your child unhealthy food. If the parent is purposefully feeding the child unhealthy food on purpose, with the intent to cause harm, then I can understand where child abuse applies.
What baffles me is why so many Americans get absolutely livid over this issue and assume it's governments attempting to take away a right ; this problem is a worldwide problem it's about time people admitted it but to do so places them in a position as being judged as bad parents .
Well, this dives into other argments such as the cost of healthy food vs unhealthy food, the availability of food, etc. Not allowing people to eat what they want will cause an uproar.
Yes, this verse is amazing. This sums up what I wad talking about perfectly.
It wasn't my intention to try and offend anyone. I was just wondering what opinion you were refering to.
Healthy and unhealthy are ways of eating. I will not deny that. However who are we to say that someone who eats unhealthy is doing a bad thing? I don't see how feeding the child can ever be considered child abuse unless the child is being harmed and placed in a hostile environment
My opinion? I never stated an opinion. What opinion did I state?
I believe he is saying that you haven't countered his argument at all. You haven't refuted his claims.
In my church we believe that salvation comes from Jesus Christ. We believe that only through Jesus will you be delivered.
This entails the judging of a parents choice of food. Are you saying that there is a defined right and wrong way to eat?
Are you possibly a democrat? Or do you just support Obama and his views?
I don't see it solving the problem. I also feel that the health of a person is the business of that person. No need to control their lifestyle and eating habits.
Because God is a just judge and also a good judge. If God didn't do anything about the people who violated His law, then He wouldn't be either good or just.
Very nice. I like what you said here.
Well, do we define "lying" or "adultery" as a condition? I believe that these things happen naturally. It feels awkward to call them conditions.
Yes, I believe God exists. I believe we are all here for a purpose that only God knows.
If the gorilla would have been shot with a tranquilizer it most likely would have become enraged and ravaged the child. It would have taken around 10 minutes for the dart to take effect. The gorilla seemed to be agitated. I fairly positive it would have attacked the child. Resulting in death. Also, what if the gorilla fell on top of the child? It was wise, but saddening, to shoot the gorilla.
He gained status and popularity
Yes, but he should have been aware that doing so would result in him getting punished for "lying".
he was lying because God doesn't exist
I'd argue this, but this isn't really relevant to the debate subject.
he conned people into believing he was the son of God and had powers that's manipulation, something which wasn't to difficult to do back in a time of un-education.
People would still have doubts. You have to be able to prove something to them. I'd imagine Jesus knowing that he won't get many followers if he doesn't perform miracles.
Are there more studies on this? Or perhaps are there public tests with split brain patients that can be shown?
Why do you believe he was lying? Or why do you think he was a con artist? What would he gain from that?
I don't think there was any other option. If you shot it with a tranquilizer dart it probably would have gotten angry. There a chance the gorilla could have harmed the child. The zoo didn't want to take those chances.
Very interesting video. However, I do not expect this to account as a full set of evidence. I don't think many people on this site will be affected by the video.
I guess I get what the picture is trying to say. I don't think it's an accurate representation of creationists.
We all deserve the fate you described. You can find away to escape such a horrible fate.
That's understandable. Most Christians, at least the one's I have communicated with, believe Earth is a very old planet and that the 5,000 years story isn't accurate.
This is what I was thinking. I'm glad you caught on to it. You also worded this better.
It is logically impossible for god to know what lust and envy feel like without experiencing those feelings.
How so? If we assume this rule is an official rule then God can easily break this rule with his own power, correct? Also, this is only true for us and what we observe. We do not know how God works or how he thinks. It would be hard to make such an assumption.
Lastly, the Mere experience of lust and envy is sinful; the experience of pregnancy and over-dosage is not, however.
I agree, but they were just example. However, nothing proves that God has felt lust or envy towards something.
Although I enjoyed reading that my question wasn't answered. Also, God knows many things. God knows how it feels to be pregnant, yet God has never been pregnant. God knows what it's like to overdose on a drug, but God hasn't done drugs. I don't think that knowing what "x" feels like necessarily means one also has done what it takes to feel "x" (X being the action or feeling).
Premise (4)
If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy
What would God lust for? Or even envy?
God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are three forms of one great being. Jesus is/was the physical embodiment of the word of God. The Holy Spirit is the metaphysical word of God. The Holy Spirit comes to give people guidance and of course share the word. God is the word. He is the creator and sculptor of mankind and the universe.
Of course. One could one day find evidence that just completely makes Christianity void and null. Until then I'll remain a Christian.
I don't think most Christians believe the Earth (and universe) was made five thousand years ago.
Nobody can make God. He is everlasting and has always been. His existence is beyond our conception.
If I were in charge of Heaven no. Not until they made the decision to deny my word.
Maybe just "The United States" or "America". Not much else to call the USA.
I'm aware of this. God can still say I'm not fit for Heaven and I would have to accept his judgment.
All people have sinned. I have sinned. So depending on God's judgment I could end up suffering eternally.
Well, I believe that God existed before the Big Bang and created the Big Bang as well. However that may not float well with others so maybe everything just sort of existed in another form and we are a small part of this giant network of universes.
No. I believe that someone's choice of which god(s) to follow is something they must find out for themselves.
His statement is undoubtedly true. There are more than two political parties. Maybe not more than two prominent/dominant parties, but most certainly more than two.
Wait what kind of news was this lol. If this a comedy sketch channel? That was pretty funny.
I don't see you on many serious debates. If we have any serious debates for that matter.
If the meaning of life is not objective, it is not real as it cannot be applied to all living things.
I agree that if a meaning isn't objective it doesn't apply to all living things, but saying it isn't real seems false in my eyes. For example, if a teacher gives all her students a test randomly without saying anything many students would try to find a meaning behind the surprise test. Some could say that the teacher is cruel, some could say the teacher wants to track progress, and some could say the teacher wants to make the students study harder and be prepared for random tests. Could these subjective assumptions be false? Of course. Are they real? Of course. These assumptions may not be accurate, but they are real possibilities. I don't see why someone's subjective experience is automatically no longer real if it doesn't apply to all.
People generally do not believe God is good but rather they believe He is evil or uncaring at best.
So, are these subjective assumptions real or not?
That is why they think the meaning of life cannot be defined and is subjective to their own feelings.
I don't think so. People believe the meaning of life is what you make of it simply because of the fact that an objective meaning hasn't be found or isn't applicable to everyone. God doesn't necessarily have to be in that situation.
As best as I can tell, you do not believe life means God is good but rather that life means you are free to do whatever you feel like doing.
In my first post I gave a purpose and not a meaning. I believe the meaning of life is for God's knowing only. Asking me what the meaning of life is seems like asking me why God created us. The bible can help clarify that.
Death proves you wrong, but you keep on believing yourself anyways. Correct?
If you say so.
I'm well aware of that. That is why I gave two answers in my first post. One was from my point of view, a religious view, and the other was a non-religious view. The fact that there are so many answers, or guesses if you prefer that word, on what the meaning of life is shows me that this meaning is relative to the point of view of the one being questioned. If there was one completely objective meaning to life then everyone would give the same response. This isn't the case though.
Well, rather negative towards the faith I see. You seem to have a personal problem with the faith as well.
Well yes, I fully agree on God's grace and glory. I just didn't know where you stood religiously. From a non-religious stand point one may say that there isn't a meaning. If there is a meaning then there is a purpose. Some don't like that idea.
When I said what life can offer someone in a lifetime I meant for it to be subjective. I misinterpreted the original question, but if we are just trying to define life then even that would be subjective.
If God wished to smite you he would do so. There is no way for us to tell if God wishes to end someone's life. I don't see why God would strike you down in the first place.
I don't see a reason for the US to start a draft. I believe we have enough soldiers already.
