Originally posted by Paul Dirac IISo you believe that scripture means you can pray for anything and Jesus will make it come true?
Indeed, let's make it very simple.
Suppose every Bible you ever had put your hands on had John 14:13 reading like this:
And whatsoever [b]is the Father's will, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Would that have resulted in your prayer life being any different than it actually is?[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseDo you believe a creator is also not necessary for a house, a hospital, a car, or money to exist? Does that also just happen by chance or whatever? What is your theory of how your car came to exist. I know you will probably say it evolved from a Model A Ford, but how did the Model A Ford come to exist? Does the science say there was no creator of the Model A Ford? Did it just come about by chance? What is the theory?
I have a lack of belief in a creator. Which is not the same thing as denying the possibility of one. It just appears so far from scientific evidence a creator is not needed for our universe to have come about. Further scientific study may change that but for now the scales for me tip to the non-created universe. I have no built in bias that I would fight fo ...[text shortened]...
Like the man said, a sufficiently advanced technology cannot be told from magic from our POV.
Originally posted by RJHindsWell OBVIOUSLY fords come about by chance. Why would you think otherwise?
Do you believe a creator is also not necessary for a house, a hospital, a car, or money to exist? Does that also just happen by chance or whatever? What is your theory of how your car came to exist. I know you will probably say it evolved from a Model A Ford, but how did the Model A Ford come to exist? Does the science say there was no creator of the Model A Ford? Did it just come about by chance? What is the theory?
Anyone who believes there is no possibility of a Creator... bases their argument on completely unscientific data, most likely personal desire. Taken a step further, anyone who believes a Creator is possible, but it is impossible for that Creator to have a personality, is again basing their argument on opinion, not fact (let alone logic).
All I'm saying is, if there can be a Creator, there can be a Creator with a personality. And the personality of a Creator can't possibly please all mankind... there will always be a group of people who don't like the personality of the Creator.
Over and over, it seems to boil down to the unbelievers thinking a worthy Creator must do nothing less than ensconce every being in opulence, in a perfect world, with no problems or challenges. Anything less than that--the slightest issue or problem experienced by a single created being, is utterly and completely unacceptable and must mean no Creator exists. Because if just one created being has a problem or a challenge and the rest don't, that means favoritism. However if all beings have equal problems and challenges then the world is less than perfect and therefore couldn't be created by a worthy Creator.
The argument is so completely ridiculous and demanding, it's almost laughable. But you'll find that even some of the greatest minds among the Atheists really think this way.
Originally posted by sumydidLovely strawman. Can you perhaps provide even a shred of evidence that any atheist thinks that way? I say you made it all up.
The argument is so completely ridiculous and demanding, it's almost laughable. But you'll find that even some of the greatest minds among the Atheists really think this way.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe culmination of every argument I've heard from thousands of Atheists over time, is based on the idea that because there is suffering in this world, whoever created it is evil. And since there aren't any relevant belief systems out there that embrace the Creator as evil, their gods simply can't exist.
Lovely strawman. Can you perhaps provide even a shred of evidence that any atheist thinks that way? I say you made it all up.
No. I've never heard any Atheist say this word for word. And why should they, when it sounds so pathetically inept when it's all spelled out in plain English.
Since you claim I've made it all up.. then please tell me. Do you think the idea of a Creator allowing suffering to exist, is acceptable?
That's a yes or no question.
Originally posted by RJHinds"Whatsoever" sure does cover a lot of ground, RJ.
So you believe that scripture means you can pray for anything and Jesus will make it come true?
If it was not really meant as "anything" then the choice of wording was poor. And that would lead me to ask you how much you think a perfect deity guided the writing, copying, and translating of what was intended to be his word.
Originally posted by sumydidWhat do you mean by 'acceptable'?
Since you claim I've made it all up.. then please tell me. Do you think the idea of a Creator allowing suffering to exist, is acceptable?
That's a yes or no question.
Do I think such creator could exist? Yes. Do I think it is compatible with what theists claim about a creator? No.
Would I like the idea of such a creator existing? No.
If a creator exists, does he allow suffering? Obviously yes.
Do I claim that the existence of suffering rules out the existence of a creator (as you claimed some theists do)? No.
Originally posted by sumydidDo you notice how this is quite different from what you said in your previous post?
The culmination of every argument I've heard from thousands of Atheists over time, is based on the idea that because there is suffering in this world, whoever created it is evil. And since there aren't any relevant belief systems out there that embrace the Creator as evil, their gods simply can't exist.
Here the argument is:
1. Evil exists.
2. Theists do not believe in evil Gods.
3. Therefore 'not evil' Gods cannot exist.
Whereas in your previous post you claimed that the conclusion was that 'no Creator exists.'
Note also that most athiests when making the argument also include the claims that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. In other words, they don't even rule out the possibility of a nice God who is not able to stop suffering.
Originally posted by Paul Dirac II"Whatsoever" is just one word in the text. One should not base a belief on one word. To get the true meaning one must make sure that one's interpretation is consistent with all statements made on the subject.
"Whatsoever" sure does cover a lot of ground, RJ.
If it was not really meant as "anything" then the choice of wording was poor. And that would lead me to ask you how much you think a perfect deity guided the writing, copying, and translating of what was intended to be his word.
I do not doubt that the Holy Bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, however, that does not include every one that handled that scripture after it was written or the translators, who put it into other languages. And especially not the false teacher and prophet Joseph Smith.
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIPaul Dirac II,
Some Christians say some particular Bible verse is literally true, while others say it was meant to be read as metaphor or hyperbole or poetry. Some say a Biblical passage was meant for some tribe living at some time in the past, but does not apply to the modern church. Some will say the modern translation is a corruption of a perfect original, so that ...[text shortened]... on of Heli, the son of Matthat… the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. - Luke 3:23–38
You have many verses there.
If you would like me to expound a little on say, two of these passages, which two would you like me to fellowship with you on ?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipHow about tackling the last two.
... which two would you like me to fellowship with you on?
* And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed. - Revelation 7:4
* Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat… the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. - Luke 3:23–38
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is at least one denomination that takes the first of these to mean only 144,000 believers make it to Heaven.
The second of these can be used in a literal way to calculate that humans have only been on Earth for some few thousand years.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou mean, as I claim some Atheists do. Well this is good to hear. I think. Actually what I asked is, does the existence of suffering rule out an ACCEPTABLE creator? It seems as if you believe that a creator could exist, and even though suffering exists, it's acceptable that this hypothetical creator allows it.
Do I claim that the existence of suffering rules out the existence of a creator (as you claimed some theists do)? No.
If so, there must be a line of demarcation that separates levels of suffering. As you have stated (as do most Atheists that care to speak about it) the level of suffering in the world today is unacceptable for a worthy god to exist.
What is the breaking point in world-suffering between acceptable and unacceptable?