CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is God obligated to help/save everybody?
Hello, Starchild here.
I was wanting to get an opinion on the belief that God is obligated to help/save everybody. For example, if a person is dying of cancer is God obligated to save them? Or if a person is going to get raped (sorry if this offends anyone I just hear this instance being brought up fairly often) should God save that person? Some say yes if he is an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and all-loving god then he should help everyone. On the other hand some say that God helps those who seek him and even then God helps those he wants to help. What do you think?
For the sake of argument I will assume god is real and has all the omni attributes typically associated with him. If he knew via his omniscience what a mess this world would be before creating it, but he chose to create it anyway, then he is responsible for the mess and it's his responsibility to fix it. An omnibenevolent god would never create something so messed up in the first place. So if there is a god, I don't think there is any chance of him being benevolent. A benevolent god wouldn't create a system of life that has to survive by brutally killing and eating each other. The circle of life is really a circle of death and destruction and definitely not the handiwork of a benevolent god.
If he knew via his omniscience what a mess this world would be before creating it, but he chose to create it anyway, then he is responsible for the mess and it's his responsibility to fix it.
I agree to an extent, but what if we view his omniscience differently? After all we don't know the exact type of omniscience God has, but it's quite reasonable to assume he knows everything.
An omnibenevolent god would never create something so messed up in the first place. So if there is a god, I don't think there is any chance of him being benevolent.
So, what if Eve decided not to eat the fruit? Would the world still be a messed up place? Does Eve eating the fruit have anything to do with God's omniscience.
A benevolent god wouldn't create a system of life that has to survive by brutally killing and eating each other.
Is this brutal though? God created the world in a manner for humans to feast upon the animals he bestowed upon us. If God saw this as a good thing then wouldn't it be a good thing for animals to feast on each other?
The circle of life is really a circle of death and destruction and definitely not the handiwork of a benevolent god.
So, for purposes of clarification, is your argument using the circle of life as it's basis? I'm just curious so that I can understand what we will be discussing here.
what if we view his omniscience differently? After all we don't know the exact type of omniscience God has, but it's quite reasonable to assume he knows everything.
I'm only aware of two different types of omniscience, knowing everything there is to know excluding future events, and knowing everything there is to know including future events. Since you mentioned Eve I'll address the Christian version of god. According to many verses in the Bible, god is able to see the future.
If we ignore those verses and go with the other type of omniscience and assume god can't see the future we still run into a problem. If god is omnipotent he should be able to create things without flaws. Since he created numerous flawed things, such as us humans, then he either wanted them to be flawed, so flawed that he will be subjecting most of them to eternal torment, or he isn't omnipotent, or he isn't benevolent.
So, what if Eve decided not to eat the fruit? Would the world still be a messed up place? Does Eve eating the fruit have anything to do with God's omniscience.
Assuming the story is true, which is a huge assumption that even most Christians have abandoned, the story reveals gods lack of omniscience and benevolence. If god can see future events, he knew she would eat the fruit, so he set her up for failure from the beginning. If he can't see future events, he still should have known better than to put the tree there in the first place since he should know that Eve would be likely to eat the fruit since he designed her brain. He would also know when the snake was trying to tempt her, so he could have put a stop to it right there, but instead he just stood by twiddling his thumbs waiting for her to screw up and then condemning all of humanity to suffering and misery for her action. The whole story make god look extremely malevolent. If a parent punished their child the way god punishes his creations, they would be thought of as a psychopath and thrown in jail.
Is this brutal though? God created the world in a manner for humans to feast upon the animals he bestowed upon us. If God saw this as a good thing then wouldn't it be a good thing for animals to feast on each other?
How can violence, pain, terror and death be considered good? That's the opposite of good. Watch this video and you'll see just how brutal the circle of life is. Warning, it's a pretty graphic. https://www.youtube.com/v/watch?v=PcnH_TOqi3I
If god is really omnipotent he could have created life that doesn't need food at all, or at the very least made all animals vegetarian.
So, for purposes of clarification, is your argument using the circle of life as it's basis? I'm just curious so that I can understand what we will be discussing here.
It's just one of many things, but for brevity we should probably stick with the circle of life for now.
If we ignore those verses and go with the other type of omniscience and assume god can't see the future we still run into a problem. If god is omnipotent he should be able to create things without flaws.
I agree with you, but how do we know that we are using the correct definition of omnipotence? Also how do we know that God is omnipotent? Hopefully these questions aren't annoying you. If so sorry about that. I'm just trying to put my feet in the ground. Also my pastor once said that it would be wrong for God to create another perfect thing other than himself as he can only be the highest being in existence. What do you think about that?
Assuming the story is true, which is a huge assumption that even most Christians have abandoned, the story reveals gods lack of omniscience and benevolence. If god can see future events, he knew she would eat the fruit, so he set her up for failure from the beginning. If he can't see future events, he still should have known better than to put the tree there in the first place since he should know that Eve would be likely to eat the fruit since he designed her brain. He would also know when the snake was trying to tempt her, so he could have put a stop to it right there, but instead he just stood by twiddling his thumbs waiting for her to screw up and then condemning all of humanity to suffering and misery for her action. The whole story make god look extremely malevolent. If a parent punished their child the way god punishes his creations, they would be thought of as a psychopath and thrown in jail.
Why would God be obligated to stop any of the actions that occurred? If God is a God that valued free will then why would he stop Eve? Or the Serpent? Also what would they learn if God stopped Eve from doing wrong things? If the entire universe was only filled with good how would we understand God? In order to understand good we would have to understand evil, yes? God gave punishments that seem to work in opposition to what they once had. Pan instead of pleasure. Abandonment instead of unity. Sin instead of righteousness. We may differ opinions on what God did, but I still want to see you response. I'm enjoying this.
How can violence, pain, terror and death be considered good? That's the opposite of good. Watch this video and you'll see just how brutal the circle of life is. Warning, it's a pretty graphic.
It's natural for things to work in this way. I watched the Baboon eat the Gazelle and I don't see anything wrong with this. If creatures don't eat they die. God has determined this to be good then it's what was best for life. My opinion is most likely biased an unacceptable in debating grounds, but this is truth to me.
If god is really omnipotent he could have created life that doesn't need food at all, or at the very least made all animals vegetarian.
Depends on if he is truly omnipotent and if he is as powerful as we think. Life with no food? I think God wanted us to eat and to eat well. Where would our nutrients come from? And if all life is valued in the manner you present then why are plants allowed to be eaten?
It's just one of many things, but for brevity we should probably stick with the circle of life for now.
I agree with you, but how do we know that we are using the correct definition of omnipotence?
There aren't many definitions for omnipotence.
1. Having complete or unlimited power.
2. Having virtually unlimited authority or influence.
If we're talking about the Christian god and assume the Bible is correct, then according to Jesus we should be using the first definition.
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible'"
If we assume the Bible is not correct or all the verses referring to god being all powerful are just using hyperbole, that could explain how god could create things with flaws, but it doesn't explain why he doesn't try to fix the flaws he can fix. For example, there are numerous verses where god cures people with leprosy. So if he really has the power to cure that disease, why doesn't he just eliminate it completely. Even to this day leprosy infects hundreds of thousands of people. It was in the millions not too long ago, but thanks to modern medicine they have been able to cure 16 million cases in the past 20 years. So if us humans are able to cure it, why is god just sitting by watching millions of people suffer in agony?
Also how do we know that God is omnipotent?
I'm just going off of the definitions typically associated with him, because I have nothing else to go off of. God is such an amorphous concept that it's a challenging subject to discuss with no clear definition of what he really is.
Hopefully these questions aren't annoying you. If so sorry about that. I'm just trying to put my feet in the ground.
No need to apologize. You can ask all the questions you want. Asking questions is a good thing and I highly encourage it.
Also my pastor once said that it would be wrong for God to create another perfect thing other than himself as he can only be the highest being in existence. What do you think about that?
I would ask him why he thinks that. I can't think of any reason why that would be the case.
Why would God be obligated to stop any of the actions that occurred? If God is a God that valued free will then why would he stop Eve? Or the Serpent?
For the same reason a parent would be expected to protect their child from a sexual predator. When someone you love is in danger you do what you can to protect them. At the very least god should have warned them that the serpent was bad news, so at least they could make an educated decision. They didn't even know what good and evil was until after eating the fruit, so they didn't even know they were doing something wrong.
As far as god valuing free will goes, should we follow his example and fire everyone in law enforcement because they are violating the criminal's free will? If it's okay for us to stop people from committing crimes, why is it so wrong for god to do it?
Also what would they learn if God stopped Eve from doing wrong things?
Do people have to touch a hot stove or snort cocaine to learn that those things are harmful? No, a simple explanation goes a long way. Plus if god really is as powerful as most people claim, then he could put all the knowledge we need to make wise decisions in our brain with just the snap of a finger.
If the entire universe was only filled with good how would we understand God? In order to understand good we would have to understand evil, yes?
Do you have to feel the heartbreak of being dumped before you can feel the euphoria of falling in love? If that's the case then no one could ever fall in love because you have to fall in love before you can feel the heartbreak. Do you have to experience the horror of being raped before you can experience the pleasure of making love to your wife?
God gave punishments that seem to work in opposition to what they once had. Pain instead of pleasure. Abandonment instead of unity. Sin instead of righteousness.
Does the punishment fit the crime? Billions of people suffering from horrific diseases, being raped, murdered, enslaved, and being sent to eternal torment in hell all because one person at a piece of fruit when they were told not to. That seems a bit excessive. Should parents follow gods example and torture their children when they disobey?
I watched the Baboon eat the Gazelle and I don't see anything wrong with this.
Would you still see nothing wrong with it if you were the one being eaten alive?
If creatures don't eat they die.
Then god did a lousy job of designing them.
I think God wanted us to eat and to eat well.
Then he should created a plentiful food source that doesn't rely on pain and suffering.
And if all life is valued in the manner you present then why are plants allowed to be eaten?
Not all life is equal. As far as we know plants don't feel pain or emotional distress, and in my opinion those two things are the main reason killing is wrong.
2. Having virtually unlimited authority or influence.
See, that's where definitions can vary.
How will we determine unlimited power? The ability to do all things, even the impossible? Or all things that are actually possible? Or just unlimited influence, control, etc.
If we're talking about the Christian god and assume the Bible is correct, then according to Jesus we should be using the first definition.
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible'"
Yes, so then God would be able to do everything. Not sure if this includes the impossible or just what is logically possible.
If we assume the Bible is not correct or all the verses referring to god being all powerful are just using hyperbole, that could explain how god could create things with flaws, but it doesn't explain why he doesn't try to fix the flaws he can fix. For example, there are numerous verses where god cures people with leprosy. So if he really has the power to cure that disease, why doesn't he just eliminate it completely. Even to this day leprosy infects hundreds of thousands of people. It was in the millions not too long ago, but thanks to modern medicine they have been able to cure 16 million cases in the past 20 years. So if us humans are able to cure it, why is god just sitting by watching millions of people suffer in agony?
I see. I don't have much of a response, but if I were to give you an answer I would say that since man is full of sin God has no reason to heal them. The unrighteous will fall and the righteous will rise. I guess this could work, but I see many problems.
'm just going off of the definitions typically associated with him, because I have nothing else to go off of. God is such an amorphous concept that it's a challenging subject to discuss with no clear definition of what he really is.
You know? I think this sometimes. How much do we truly know of God?
I would ask him why he thinks that. I can't think of any reason why that would be the case.
I can do so if you want me to. This was a few months ago, but I'm positive he remembers his sermons.
For the same reason a parent would be expected to protect their child from a sexual predator. When someone you love is in danger you do what you can to protect them. At the very least god should have warned them that the serpent was bad news, so at least they could make an educated decision. They didn't even know what good and evil was until after eating the fruit, so they didn't even know they were doing something wrong.
Well, they knew right from wrong. Just the concepts of good and evil is what they were missing. God did command them both not to eat of the fruit. You would think that would be enough, but I see your point. I don't think I will ever understand God's motives.
As far as god valuing free will goes, should we follow his example and fire everyone in law enforcement because they are violating the criminal's free will? If it's okay for us to stop people from committing crimes, why is it so wrong for god to do it?
No, punishment is due to all people on earth. Now, here is something I noticed. In the story of Adam God gave Adam simple rules.
Genesis 2:15-17
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Now later when the serpent asks Eve what God really said Eve gave a slightly different version.
Genesis 3:2-3
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
So, if Adam was to tend to the garden this implies that the garden needs to be sustained. Meaning every plant needs to be taken care of, but if what both sections said were true then how would Adam tend the entire garden if he cannot touch the tree? Not even to remove bad fruit or clear away fallen fruit? Also if the two versions are different then is it possible that one is false or that the author left out information as to the true course of actions during the fall? A little off topic, but rather interesting. Also, it seems like the serpent didn't lie at all, but rather spoke the truth.
Do people have to touch a hot stove or snort cocaine to learn that those things are harmful? No, a simple explanation goes a long way. Plus if god really is as powerful as most people claim, then he could put all the knowledge we need to make wise decisions in our brain with just the snap of a finger.
God did warm them that the tree was harmful. Also what would be the purpose of learning if people just had knowledge given to them at birth?
Do you have to feel the heartbreak of being dumped before you can feel the euphoria of falling in love? If that's the case then no one could ever fall in love because you have to fall in love before you can feel the heartbreak. Do you have to experience the horror of being raped before you can experience the pleasure of making love to your wife?
I don't think those are exactly on par with my examples. Those are rather extreme.
Does the punishment fit the crime? Billions of people suffering from horrific diseases, being raped, murdered, enslaved, and being sent to eternal torment in hell all because one person at a piece of fruit when they were told not to. That seems a bit excessive. Should parents follow gods example and torture their children when they disobey?
Other than disease humans do not have to act that way. Hell wasn't created for humans. I believe it was only for Satan and his followers.
Would you still see nothing wrong with it if you were the one being eaten alive?
Anyone being punished or subject to pain would obviously see something wrong. Doesn't mean it's not natural.
Then god did a lousy job of designing them.
I don't know. He knows more than we do.
Then he should created a plentiful food source that doesn't rely on pain and suffering.
Why is pain bad?
Not all life is equal. As far as we know plants don't feel pain or emotional distress, and in my opinion those two things are the main reason killing is wrong.
So a lack of a nervous system means that the life ins't equal to it? If one cannot feel pain or emotional distress they are considered unequal?
Hopefully these aren't offensive. I'm not trying to start anything and I have been told I can be harsh sometimes.
I would say that since man is full of sin God has no reason to heal them.
If someone's child had leprosy, would it be reasonable of the parent to refuse to take their child to the doctor to be cured because their child disobeyed them? No, that parent would be considered a terrible parent and they would be thrown in jail for neglect. You also have to consider where leprosy and all other diseases came from in the first place. According to most theists, god created everything. Why would a benevolent god create such horrible things?
Well, they knew right from wrong. Just the concepts of good and evil is what they were missing.
They are essentially the same thing. Right and good are synonyms and so are wrong and evil.
No, punishment is due to all people on earth.
I'm not sure what you mean or how it applies to what I said. Can you please clarify?
God did warm them that the tree was harmful.
You're right. I remembered god telling them not to eat the fruit but forgot he told them they would die if they ate it. However, the serpent told them, “You will not certainly die... For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Since they ate the fruit they obviously thought that the serpent was telling the truth and god was lying to them. Telling someone not to do something won't do much good if the person thinks you are lying to them.
Also what would be the purpose of learning if people just had knowledge given to them at birth?
There would be no purpose or need to learn if that was the case. Is that such a bad thing? If you could have all the important knowledge necessary to make wise decisions throughout life put in your brain, wouldn't you jump at the chance? I sure would.
I don't think those are exactly on par with my examples. Those are rather extreme.
You didn't provide any examples. Can you provide some that show how you can't understand good without understanding evil?
Other than disease humans do not have to act that way.
I agree, but the existence of diseases in a pretty strong indicator that if there is a god he is not benevolent. Also, if god is able to see the future like the Bible claims, then he knew humans would do all of those horrible things, yet he still chose to create them. Even if he can't see the future, he can still put a stop to all of those things. I honestly can't think of any good reason a benevolent god would create people in the first place.
Option 1: Create people which will result in an incredible amount of suffering for billions of them.
Option 2: Don't create anyone and no one suffers.
Why on earth would a benevolent god choose option 1?
Hell wasn't created for humans. I believe it was only for Satan and his followers.
Isn't god capable of creating somewhere else besides hell for the rest of the people who tried to live good lives but just thought the evidence for god's existence was lacking? If hell actually exists, then that alone is damning evidence that god is not benevolent. Why would a benevolent god create a place where people are tormented for eternity? Even us evil humans know that torture is wrong, yet the Biblical god seems to have no problem with it. If we were to follow gods example instead of sending people to jail we would be sending them to the torture chamber and leave them there forever.
Anyone being punished or subject to pain would obviously see something wrong. Doesn't mean it's not natural.
We're not debating about whether it's natural, were debating about whether it's wrong to cause pain and suffering.
Why is pain bad?
Being in pain is a horrible feeling. I'm in pain 24/7 because of Fibromyalgia and it sucks big time.
So a lack of a nervous system means that the life isn't equal to it? If one cannot feel pain or emotional distress they are considered unequal?
If something can't feel pain or emotional distress or even form a single thought, then me eating it isn't going to cause it any discomfort.
Hopefully these aren't offensive. I'm not trying to start anything and I have been told I can be harsh sometimes.
Don't worry, nothing you've said has come across as harsh. You've been very civil, something that is sorely lacking in most of the debates on this site.
If someone's child had leprosy, would it be reasonable of the parent to refuse to take their child to the doctor to be cured because their child disobeyed them? No, that parent would be considered a terrible parent and they would be thrown in jail for neglect. You also have to consider where leprosy and all other diseases came from in the first place. According to most theists, god created everything. Why would a benevolent god create such horrible things?
Yeah, I couldn't provide a clear cut answer. I just had to scrap up something.
They are essentially the same thing. Right and good are synonyms and so are wrong and evil.
Yeah, but sometimes doing the right thing isn't good and doing something wrong isn't evil. Well not so much true for the former.
Telling someone not to do something won't do much good if the person thinks you are lying to them.
I agree.
There would be no purpose or need to learn if that was the case. Is that such a bad thing? If you could have all the important knowledge necessary to make wise decisions throughout life put in your brain, wouldn't you jump at the chance? I sure would.
Wouldn't you be bored though? Having all that knowledge?
Can you provide some that show how you can't understand good without understanding evil?
No, sadly I cannot. I just assumed this was true when my church said it.
Why on earth would a benevolent god choose option 1?
Not sure, I don't really know his plan or intentions.
We're not debating about whether it's natural, were debating about whether it's wrong to cause pain and suffering.
True, forgive me for attempting to change the subject. This wasn't intentional. So, what actually qualifies pain as bad?
Being in pain is a horrible feeling. I'm in pain 24/7 because of Fibromyalgia and it sucks big time.
I didn't know what it was until I just looked it up. I am absolutely sorry. Disregard my entire argument on pain. I will not bring you personal matter into it and poke at it in anyway. I know you're not religious, but I will pray for you anyway.
Don't worry, nothing you've said has come across as harsh. You've been very civil, something that is sorely lacking in most of the debates on this site.
Yeah, but sometimes doing the right thing isn't good.
Well, sort of, I think in those cases it would actually be both good and bad at the same time. For example, apologizing to someone for lying to them is good because you feel remorse and are trying to make amends, but bad because it will hurt them to know that you lied to them.
Wouldn't you be bored though? Having all that knowledge?
Then god must be bored out of his mind ;) I'm not sure why having a lot of knowledge would be boring. Having knowledge doesn't stop me from doing the things I enjoy.
So, what actually qualifies pain as bad?
One of the definitions of bad is, "not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome." Pain is definitely unpleasant, unwelcome and not something most people desire.
Well, sort of, I think in those cases it would actually be both good and bad at the same time. For example, apologizing to someone for lying to them is good because you feel remorse and are trying to make amends, but bad because it will hurt them to know that you lied to them.
Like a double edged sword.
Then god must be bored out of his mind ;) I'm not sure why having a lot of knowledge would be boring. Having knowledge doesn't stop me from doing the things I enjoy.
I guess so. I can't imagine having near infinite knowledge.
ne of the definitions of bad is, "not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome." Pain is definitely unpleasant, unwelcome and not something most people desire.
I agree. It seems we have come to our conclusion on this conversation. I enjoyed my time. I most certain didn't argue effectively, but I'll work on it.
It doesn't really matter if you argue effectively as long as you learn something from the debate and it makes you see things from a different perspective. Even if nothing I say changes your mind, at least you have a better understanding of how other people think.
You showed a lot more maturity than most of the people on this site. You're not stubborn and aren't afraid to admit when you're wrong. That's something I rarely see on this site, and it's a welcome change. One of my favorite quotes is, "Admitting you're wrong is the same as admitting you're smarter today than you were yesterday."
Thanks for keeping things civil. I look forward to future debates with you.
if you are a christian just look to the life of Jesus. god became man and suffered, calls people to suffer with the poor, "take up your cross", and the new/old testaments have a narrative about what God is doing on the matter. that should be something you meditate on though eventually it will conceptualize.
i accept specific doctrines that also explain this problem away clearly that are found in the early church, namely the doctrine of universal salvation and the doctrine of reincarnation. and yes both of these doctrines have biblical support. universal salvation has a ton of biblical support accepted by many biblical scholars. the doctrine of universal salvation is an archetype of the unconscious according to psychology, which is interesting. and reincarnation has some interesting scientific evidence you can look into, led by Dr. Ian Stevenson in his classic 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation and Children who Remember Previous Lives. also hear his lectures on youtube.
i mostly choosing this side just to even the score. i think in order to answer this question, first the question of whether it is better to have something both good and bad or not at all. following that question should immediately come your answer. then again depending on how you look at it you could also say that god being omnipotent would be capable of creating a world and an 'us' that is perfect in every rationalisation and perception. while god did not create this ideal imaginary world, but god did not create the ideal's opposite, so it's quite rash to call god maleficent just as it is equally rash to call him benevolent. personally i think god would be superior to us in a great many ways, but not as perfect as everyone seems to think. because even if gods mistakes in our eyes are not mistakes in gods eyes, they are mistakes from our view, which is how we judge everything and the only way we can judge anything, so from a human perspective he is not omnipotent and therefore he is not omnipotent.
Nope we're obligated to save God how atrocious,definitely but again you do wonder if your actions are gonna make him obligated,good actions bring good rewards
No. He leaves all medical matters to the National Health Service. On issues of crime he leaves to the appropriate municipal services of the state such as the police.
If you believe in an omnipotent God, then I think you would have to conclude that 'no, God is not obligated to help/save everybody'. This is because God created everything, including the rules. Who are we to suggest he has to do anything?
If you believe in an omnibenevolent God, then you have to somehow reconcile that with with the nature of the world (universe). How could a God that claims to love us setup events like the 2004 tsunami that killed over 200,000 people - many of whom had never heard of him. Some will say that 'God works in mysterious ways', suggesting that with are incapable of understanding his majesty. If that's true, then why do we think we understand anything about God? His ideas of something as fundamental to the human condition as love are vastly different from most of ours.
God in all his wisdom, allows us the freedom to choose our eternity. He forces nothing on you. The Bibles says we will all have an opportunity to choose during our lives. I believe all children before age of accountability will go to heaven.
Except existence in a world where all available evidence indicates that the god in question does not exist, requiring us to either intentionally remain ignorant (like yourself) or turn a blind eye to what we've learned (as you would have us do, I presume?) or else face eternal punishment. I mean, really- it could have formed the world in such a way as to appear exactly as old as claimed; it didn't HAVE to create numerous layers of soil and rock suggesting the passage of billions of years rather than a few thousand, nor did it have to strategically distribute fossils throughout them. It could have used plagues and illnesses in such a way that they are incurable and only target the wicked; it didn't HAVE to use microorganisms for this, and needn't have had to worry about medical science circumventing its plagues.
I believe all children before age of accountability will go to heaven.
What is Gods age of accountability? We call 17 year olds children today, but not too long ago boys were considered men at that age.
Your available evidence changes with the wind. Did you see now where they think the big bang never happened? It is laughable how often the theories of science are changed. For you to find fault with the theory of creationism is laughable.
That is because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that calls creationism into serious question. Different pieces of evidence are applicable depending on the direction of the conversation. It's still internally consistent.
Did you see now where they think the big bang never happened?
Sure, some do. The evidence is suggestive of a big bang or cyclical big bangs, but not conclusive- there are a few errata that the model doesn't seem to predict perfectly, for example. This could mean that the big bang is an overextrapolation, or it could mean that there are other forces at play that we are not yet able to measure. The problem is predominately one of precision. A few minor problems with the big bang theory (that will eventually be sorted out) still make it more credible than creationism.
It is laughable how often the theories of science are changed.
It's rather more laughable how static and unadaptable creationist stances are. Scientific theory represents our best working model of how things work- when they are found to be inaccurate, they are re-examined- most of the time it's just a matter of refining the theory into a more precise version, but there are times when theories are rejected altogether with the availability of new information.
Scienctific theory is credible specifically because it can be changed when new information is introduced. Unlike creationism.
For you to find fault with the theory of creationism is laughable.
What's laughable is your attempt to present creationism as somehow being equal to scientific theory, even going so far as to use the word theory. Creationism is not a theory. A theory represents a working model explanation for a phenomenon, formerly a hypothesis, that has made accurate predictions and stood up to repeated testing without any problems yet being found. Creationism could ALMOST have been called a hypothesis- that is, a speculated testable explanation for phenomenon that is consistent with what has already been observed- if not for the fact that it was untestable ultimately. In the modern day, it is not even almost a hypothesis, it is blatant speculation based based on well and frequently refuted assumptions made with the limited inaccurate information that was available millenia ago.
First, creationism is not a theory. It isn't even much of a hypothesis.
Second, yes ideas in science change. It would be absurd if they didn't! The whole point of science is that it always changes with new information. What is wrong with that?
I saw the purpose, but for this exercise you are to assume God exists. You failed to do so. In which I can ask you to either post another response separate from this thread correctly assessing the problem or don't participate.
There is no obligation. The notion that God should help implies that something is amiss. Which implies that God messed up somewhere and should correct his error. The only way to understand suffering in light of this notion of God is to assume that all things are correct and proper. One might presume that after we pass on we will understand that all things, great and terrible, were for whatever reason, necessary.
God created death in the first place because life is not meant to last.
And so life is just a short dream that will pass, and after all the process of life is complete, you will be asked for what you gave in return.
Have you expressed gratitude for God for the life he gave you?
I dare you to count the number of blessings he gave you.
How should I start?
With the water? The water that quenched your thirst, grew the grass in your backyard, grew the banana trees, cleaned your car, and showered you and cleaned you up every morning. The water that you swim in, fill water balloons with to play with your friends when you are 7, clean the dishes with, and drink. The water that gave you life in the first place.
How about your fingers?
Have you ever thought about the number of things you can do with your fingers?
You can hold your fork, spoon, and knife.
you can eat, floss, point at things and laugh with others, wear your clothes, feel things, steer the car...
Not only that, but you have 5 on each hand. Imagine that you only had 4.
So untill now, I have not covered 0.01% of how graceful your fingers and water are, so I give up.
