God can in many ways be compared to the Universe.
An instigator is a person as I understand the word. This is a totally bogus argument. Every cause has a person behind it? Ridiculous.
Sorry, instigator or instigation.
That's exactly the point. That's why your argument of the First Cause is silly. It solves nothing.
On the contrary, it solves everything. Once you add sentience to the mix, we have no way of disproving that a sentient being with different attributes than us has always existed. We can always prove that a non-sentient thing had a cause.
Creationism breaks laws of physics. I am not sure why you think the Big Bang breaks any laws Creationism does not.
I think God caused the Big Bang, began evolution, and finally molded Adam and Eve to appear like Neanderthals but to have souls. He breaks the laws only when He has to. He is a God of order.
The phrase "outside space/time" means nothing to me. It seems like a nonsensical statement.
How is it nonsensical? Do you think the universe has an end? Do you believe it is infinitely large?
For you to say anything whatsoever about God projects your limitations on him. How can you know anything about him?
I did nothing. He revealed Himself to me.
I disagree that ID is just as sound as claiming you don't know the cause of something. ID makes a definite claim of reality without legitimate support.
What do you deem legitimate? Answering causal questions if legitimate support. It's a lot better than "I don't know." Why did science embrace evolution rather than "I don't know"? Because any answer is better than no answer. Unless of course that answer is God.
How can something be outside of space and yet be omnipresent? Does that mean God is also inside of space? Ditto with time.
When I say outside space/time, I meant He was outside of it before it existed. Now, He is both within it and outside of it. But being within it doesn't make Him subject to its laws unless He allows it. If I go to Spain, I need not follow their laws unless I choose to.
Just for the record, Big Bang proponents don't claim the cause for the BB, if there was one, is non-sentient. However, it is unknown, which is a more reasonable statement to make than to say you know what it is.
Why is it more reasonable? I would understand if you had no evidence to back up your claim but Christians do have evidence. Perhaps not unquestionable proof--until you accept Him yourself--but definitely evidence.
False. If pleasantness in life suggests love, then unpleasantness suggests ill-feeling. Therefore God must have at least some ill will toward us.
On the contrary, unpleasantness can be explained by the free will choice to reject God. Who is more likely to harm someone else. A Christian following Jesus Christ' example or a neo-Nazi following Hitler's? Now who is more likely to help someone else?
Either you are wrong, or it follows that God would convey clearly and without doubt that he exists and loves us. God did not do that.
He has conveyed it clearly and without doubt to me and millions of others. Your conclusion is false. Now to everyone? Why are those the only two choices? What if He loves us but wants our love in return? Then He wouldn't reveal Himself because that would be coercion. Extenuating circumstances, ATY.
It's amazing that you don't see similar qualities in the God of the Old Testament.
Is the OT God a literal animal? What human-like qualities? What human would care if you kept a certain day holy? What human would care if you made a graven image of them and bowed to it? We are made in the image (eternal soul) of God, so of course we'll have the same emotional qualities.
Genesis is internally inconsistent. It describes humans being created both before and after plants, if I remember correctly.
Contrary to what many "scholars" have reported, Genesis two is not a retelling of Genesis one. How can we determine this to be true? First, we should examine the overall context. Genesis two is considerably different in regard to the emphasis of the content. Genesis one dedicates 4 verses (13
to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 26. However, Genesis two dedicates 19 verses (76
to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 7. Actually, since there are no real chapter breaks in the original Hebrew manuscripts, the story of the creation of humans continues throughout chapter 3 (another 24 verses). Obviously, the emphasis of the two "versions" is quite different. Part of the problem understanding this passage is because of the poor choice of English words in the common translations. The Hebrew word erets can be translated as "earth" (meaning global) or "land" (referring to a local geographical area). In the Old Testament, erets almost always refers to local geography and not the planet as a whole. We need to examine the context to determine whether erets refers to the entire earth or only a portion of it.
In contrast to Genesis one, there are no indications that the text is referring to global creation. In fact, Genesis 2 begins with God planting a garden8 in a place called Eden, whose location is described in the text that follows. In all, there are three other place names mentioned along with four rivers (verses 10-14). The second place name is Havilah, which is thought to be near the Caspian Sea.9 The third is Cush, which is thought to be a location in Southern Egypt or Ethiopia.10 The fourth is Assyria, which constitutes modern Iraq and Iran.11 Of the four rivers described in the text, only two are definitively identifiable. The Tigris12 and Euphrates13 Rivers run though Iraq and Iran. All the events of Genesis 2 occur in Eden, which is bounded by the three other locations, putting it within the Mesopotamian flood plain.
The narrative continues with descriptions of creation events. Adam was placed in the garden to cultivate it. God brought to Adam the animals He had already created for him to name.14 Since a suitable companion was not found for Adam, God created Eve.15 The narrative concludes with the initiation of the first marriage.16 All the creation descriptions in Genesis two can be attributed to the preparation of a place in which the first humans will live. Therefore, Genesis two further develops the account of mankind's creation at the end of the sixth day.
Suffering is caused by an inability...if we're not able to be holy, then it's not our fault for not being holy.
We're able to be holy, but we choose not to. Even once in life is enough. Do you know anyone who has gone their whole life without once lying, stealing, or lusting?
Poor animals. Interesting how humans can hand off their punishments to helpless animals. This is what you think justice is? People not having to pay for their crimes, but instead making animals do it?
Animals have no souls. They do not fear, or are happy, etc. They simply know when they are surviving and are not. The Jews killed them quickly and mercifully with a quick cut to the neck. It was God's justice, not mine. He values humans above animals, and so accepted the display of faith humans showed by sacrificing their livelihood to Him. But finally He came Himself to be the sacrifice, so even animal sacrifice is no longer necessary if we simply accept His gift.
Except for those of us who are atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists...
No, it's for everyone, ATY. Accept it right now. What's stopping you? It's a free gift. You get eternal life with a God who loves seeing you happy. Take it. It's your choice to accept or deny it.
Your religious beliefs are ridiculous, Darfius.
Kind of you to say.