Since most R/P Theists love answering hypothetical questions, here's one for u

[Bhavasita87]

and doesn't creating something outside of God entail the creation of imperfection/evil?

Not a theist, but no, and the premises of all your arguments I've seen for this aren't premises, but just assumptions that only represent one logical possibility, and of course any argument that says God must do/create something means that he can't be omnipotent -- another one of those little contradictions that arises from trying to think this way.

[GreatOldOne]

See above post. And you said you have kids. Why did you have them? Accident?

I have a little different understanding than the people to whom I posed this question.

I know who I am.

BTW I love all people whatisbro. I would help anybody if I thought I could.

[IawI]

1. How would you know God doesn't want anything? Did he tell you? I only want kids because I expect it to be fun. If I didnt expect it to be fun or enjoyable, I wwouldnt have them. Is it an instinct to want pets? No. People do it because they want to.
2. Do you even read bro? If you don't know what I'm talking about then think about it.

If god needs anything then he is not a god. It's simple logic that religious tards like yourself are incapable of using.


Lmfao it's even stated plain as day in your bronze age holy book.

Acts 17:24 "He is the God who made the world and everything in it. Since he is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn’t live in man-made temples, 25and human hands can’t serve his needs—for he has no needs..."

[eltigar]

Free will never explained a single action.

Ever watched the "saw" movies?
Even though the people were trapped, they had there own choices .
They chose what to do , either leading to there escape or very entertaining death.
Then you had that lady freak out and try sabotaging everything like satan.

[DizzySmalls]

I would help anybody if I thought I could.

No. Not unless you include helping people in ways they would prefer not to be helped

[GreatOldOne]

Not a theist, but no, and the premises of all your arguments I've seen for this aren't premises, but just assumptions that only represent one logical possibility, and of course any argument that says God must do/create something means that he can't be omnipotent -- another one of those little contradictions that arises from trying to think this way.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but premises are glorified assumptions.

If God is perfect...the creation of anything less is guess what?

[Bhavasita87]

If god needs anything then he is not a god. It's simple logic that religious tards like yourself are incapable of using.

A supreme being/deity that has desires, etc is a perfectly logical possibility. It's only tards like you that think that if any conscious supreme sort of being existed, it must fall within the realm of your narrow little chain of logic that always goes something like -- if God wants anything, etc, then he is incomplete, which means that he cannot be omnipotent, which means that he cannot be God.

All three conclusions are wrong -- the first imposing a meaningless existential sort of definition where it doesn't belong, the second imposing a ridiculously narrow conception of the word (when the word isn't even necessary for a being that could aptly be galled a god), with the last one therefore being false as there.

[GreatOldOne]

BUMP~

For either Islam or Christianity...I don't think we have a position yet on why God creates.

[IawI]

A supreme being/deity that has desires, etc is a perfectly logical possibility. It's only tards like you that think that if any conscious supreme sort of being existed, it must fall within the realm of your narrow little chain of logic that always goes something like -- if God wants anything, etc, then he is incomplete, which means that he cannot be omnipotent, which means that he cannot be God.

All three conclusions are wrong -- the first imposing a meaningless existential sort of definition where it doesn't belong, the second imposing a ridiculously narrow conception of the word (when the word isn't even necessary for a being that could aptly be galled a god), with the last one therefore being false as there.

Lol @ this pseudo-intellectual. Say something that isn't completely out your ass and I might humor you.

[Bhavasita87]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but premises are glorified assumptions.

If God is perfect...the creation of anything less is guess what?

A premise that is self-evident, and only possibly not true in the most abstract way is not the same as ones like yours. Yours aren't even the same as reasonable ones. I should have made that clear -- they are not even reasonable assumptions.

Your conclusions are predicated on a number of things that don't fit with a lot of developed, extant worldviews. Including but not limited to,

- A narrow and at times peculiar definition of evil.
- A meaningless description of God as being perfect or less than perfect. If God is the standard for perfection, then the question of God's perfection has no meaning, since "perfection" is nothing more than a comparison to an extant standard, and not an absolute quality. If you are imposing people's definition of perfection on God, and God is not perfect, this still does not imply that God must create evil, i.e. something can be non-perfect yet still logically have no qualities that would lead to something that is deemed evil - i.e. not all qualities called imperfect are necessarily also evil. If less than perfect is evil -- that goes back to what I called a narrow definition that will result in lots of peculiarities. I can expand on that if wanted.

- As said before, since you bring the notion of perfection into this (which isn't in line with many other worldviews that involve any form of cosmic or spiritual evolution, continual process, change), the notion is meaningless is God is the standard for perfection. So that leaves either some absolute objective form of what perfection is, or man being the basis for perfection. If man is the basis, then perfection is a relative term, and the notion of "less than perfect" now has no meaning, since "less than" implies some universal standard. Instead you have things like "in conflict with/not compatible with/opposed to" some definition of perfect. If not in line with this definition of perfect = equal, then first of all, you're saying that whatever standards men have = good (and getting into the whole moral relativity grounds here).

This is particularly problematic now when trying to use the notion of perfection and good & evil in the same sentence, since you can have all sorts of things that aren't perfect according to any given standard, and are good, or not evil, regardless of the standard. The only way you can relate to the 2 is to arbitrarily define one in terms of the other, which doesn't work at all.

Furthermore, even though trying to invoke the notion of perfection doesn't hold up at all, it doesn't matter, even if it does, because you can have something that is perfect, according to whatever standard you decide, and leads to evil, as far as a human perspective focused on the here and now (from that perspective) is concerned, and yet ultimately, in the big picture, something that only leads to good -- according to that very same moral standard.

You can logically have a being that is less than perfect (again pretending that this notion, within this context, has any meaning or applicability), and does only good.

[GreatOldOne]

No. Not unless you include helping people in ways they would prefer not to be helped

Sure I would help people in the ways they won't want to be helped. I hope others would do the same for me.

[IawI]

Ever watched the "saw" movies?
Even though the people were trapped, they had there own choices .
They chose what to do , either leading to there escape or very entertaining death.
Then you had that lady freak out and try sabotaging everything like satan.

[IawI]

A premise that is self-evident, and only possibly not true in the most abstract way is not the same as ones like yours. Yours aren't even the same as reasonable ones. I should have made that clear -- they are not even reasonable assumptions.

Your conclusions are predicated on a number of things that don't fit with a lot of developed, extant worldviews. Including but not limited to,

- A narrow and at times peculiar definition of evil.
- A meaningless description of God as being perfect or less than perfect. If God is the standard for perfection, then the question of God's perfection has no meaning, since "perfection" is nothing more than a comparison to an extant standard, and not an absolute quality. If you are imposing people's definition of perfection on God, and God is not perfect, this still does not imply that God must create evil, i.e. something can be non-perfect yet still logically have no qualities that would lead to something that is deemed evil - i.e. not all qualities called imperfect are necessarily also evil. If less than perfect is evil -- that goes back to what I called a narrow definition that will result in lots of peculiarities. I can expand on that if wanted.

- As said before, since you bring the notion of perfection into this (which isn't in line with many other worldviews that involve any form of cosmic or spiritual evolution, continual process, change), the notion is meaningless is God is the standard for perfection. So that leaves either some absolute objective form of what perfection is, or man being the basis for perfection. If man is the basis, then perfection is a relative term, and the notion of "less than perfect" now has no meaning, since "less than" implies some universal standard. Instead you have things like "in conflict with/not compatible with/opposed to" some definition of perfect. If not in line with this definition of perfect = equal, then first of all, you're saying that whatever standards men have = good (and getting into the whole moral relativity grounds here).

This is particularly problematic now when trying to use the notion of perfection and good & evil in the same sentence, since you can have all sorts of things that aren't perfect according to any given standard, and are good, or not evil, regardless of the standard. The only way you can relate to the 2 is to arbitrarily define one in terms of the other, which doesn't work at all.

Furthermore, even though trying to invoke the notion of perfection doesn't hold up at all, it doesn't matter, even if it does, because you can have something that is perfect, according to whatever standard you decide, and leads to evil, as far as a human perspective focused on the here and now (from that perspective) is concerned, and yet ultimately, in the big picture, something that only leads to good -- according to that very same moral standard.

You can logically have a being that is less than perfect (again pretending that this notion, within this context, has any meaning or applicability), and does only good.

[GreatOldOne]

A premise that is self-evident, and only possibly not true in the most abstract way is not the same as ones like yours. Yours aren't even the same as reasonable ones. I should have made that clear -- they are not even reasonable assumptions.

Your conclusions are predicated on a number of things that don't fit with a lot of developed, extant worldviews. Including but not limited to,

- A narrow and at times peculiar definition of evil.
- A meaningless description of God as being perfect or less than perfect. If God is the standard for perfection, then the question of God's perfection has no meaning, since "perfection" is nothing more than a comparison to an extant standard, and not an absolute quality. If you are imposing people's definition of perfection on God, and God is not perfect, this still does not imply that God must create evil, i.e. something can be non-perfect yet still logically have no qualities that would lead to something that is deemed evil - i.e. not all qualities called imperfect are necessarily also evil. If less than perfect is evil -- that goes back to what I called a narrow definition that will result in lots of peculiarities. I can expand on that if wanted.

- As said before, since you bring the notion of perfection into this (which isn't in line with many other worldviews that involve any form of cosmic or spiritual evolution, continual process, change), the notion is meaningless is God is the standard for perfection. So that leaves either some absolute objective form of what perfection is, or man being the basis for perfection. If man is the basis, then perfection is a relative term, and the notion of "less than perfect" now has no meaning, since "less than" implies some universal standard. Instead you have things like "in conflict with/not compatible with/opposed to" some definition of perfect. If not in line with this definition of perfect = equal, then first of all, you're saying that whatever standards men have = good (and getting into the whole moral relativity grounds here).

This is particularly problematic now when trying to use the notion of perfection and good & evil in the same sentence, since you can have all sorts of things that aren't perfect according to any given standard, and are good, or not evil, regardless of the standard. The only way you can relate to the 2 is to arbitrarily define one in terms of the other, which doesn't work at all.

Furthermore, even though trying to invoke the notion of perfection doesn't hold up at all, it doesn't matter, even if it does, because you can have something that is perfect, according to whatever standard you decide, and leads to evil, as far as a human perspective focused on the here and now (from that perspective) is concerned, and yet ultimately, in the big picture, something that only leads to good -- according to that very same moral standard.

You can logically have a being that is less than perfect (again pretending that this notion, within this context, has any meaning or applicability), and does only good.

I tend to think that God does everything, which including evil demonstrates God is not completely good.

[mistercollie]

1) Why God creates.
2) If God creates, isn't that necessarily the creation of imperfection/evil.

1) No idea. Either God is egotistical, and thereby selfishly motivated - or not egotistical at all, and It's motivations are altruistic; selfless. Perhaps God made mistakes in the latter perspective.

2) Yes. I am on board with blaming God for "evil". When God considered designing reality, why did God include nearly infinite varieties of visceral pain, but only a handful of forms of visceral pleasure?

Furthermore, why sensitize human conscience to things like sexuality and violence? Sex and violence are explicit in nature, especially in animals, but in human beings there are sensitivities to these behaviors. Morality is clearly necessary, but no two humans can ever seem to agree on a universal moral code. Why burden us with such dissonance?

I strongly believe that if you take away all forms of visceral pain, there would be no "evil". We could kill each other, respawn, and have fun - pushing ourselves through physiological extremes. Imagine if falling to your doom, burning alive, or being beheaded felt pleasurable. There would be no "sting" in evil if that were possible.

Balance is needed in the world. Including creation.

We'd be bored as hell without "the other side" to keep us on our toes.

Not buying it.

If this is true, then people who more closely identify as "evil" are not at all wrong. It's just two different teams playing a real-time strategy game against one another; an amoral reality at best.

[DizzySmalls]

Sure I would help people in the ways they won't want to be helped. I hope others would do the same for me.

When you say help people, you mean human beings as a whole, though. A lot of the ways you would "help" the individuals would be much more of a help to society.

You know, like locking dangerous people in cages. They probably don't see that as helping

This probably isn't on topic, no surprise there. 6666th post has to come eventually

[Bhavasita87]

Lol @ this pseudo-intellectual. Say something that isn't completely out your ass and I might humor you.

So, you're admitting that

You're too stupid to realize that if you define desiring something beyond what currently is as necessarily not being a god, then you are saying that anyone who conceives of a god that has all the universal qualities ascribed to god beings cannot actually be doing what they are doing? The very fact that I have just done so means that you are wrong.

For the first -- your conclusion is like trying to say something "If the universe ______, then it is incomplete". A meaningless statement. Like the notion of the universe -- if it exists, it is. It is neither complete nor incomplete. Reality is what it is -- if a being exists that desires something, or is driven to do something, then it exists, and all existential talk of incompleteness are meaningless.

You say that if something like this were to exist, it cannot be God -- a concept whose definition varies, but has certain universal constants, i.e. an intelligent being(s) that is supreme over everything we know and perceive, and is in one way or another the ultimate source.

There is no logical reason why these things are incompatible, which is basically what you are claiming.

Now try presenting an argument that isn't completely out of your ass about why certain personality traits are logically incompatible with the qualities that are universally ascribed to the supreme being, and you might be less of a joke.

[Bhavasita87]

I tend to think that God does everything, which including evil demonstrates God is not completely good.

You have claimed that if "God" exists, he MUST logically be evil. Your worldview in which he "does everything" is not the only extant or possible worldview. Your worldview in which evil results within our present temporal & perceived space = therefore absolutely evil is not the only extant, or possible worldview. Your worldview in which a lack of evil intent that results in evil is still evil is not the only extant or possible one (and the whole omnipotence, omniscience thing is an equally double-edged sword, so don't even bother with that).

In other words, your claim that if "God" exists, then the only possibility is that he is evil is dependent solely on your personal worldview which isn't the only possible one, or even a leading one (as if that matters).

[hassel35]

"God" is the collective force behind and through existence.

Experience as oneness can only be contrasted by apart from one.

As a "conscious human" you are experiencing something apart from "God. "

And as rivers and streams empty out into the ocean, an individual experience empties out into the collective pool or "heaven."

There is no evil. Only positive and negative which are subjective points of reference used to contrast each other.

Ultimately there is only experience. Some movies are happy , others sad, exciting or unimpressive... But the actor doesn't go to a "hell" based on his temporary role in the movie.

Neither will you. Because you are God.

[whatisbro]

If god needs anything then he is not a god. It's simple logic that religious tards like yourself are incapable of using.


Lmfao it's even stated plain as day in your bronze age holy book.

Acts 17:24 "He is the God who made the world and everything in it. Since he is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn’t live in man-made temples, 25and human hands can’t serve his needs—for he has no needs..."

He's God bro. He can do whatever he feels like. The fact that he can get whatever he wants proves he is God. You can't get whatever you wanted because you aren't God.
The phrase " as if he needs anything" shows the foolishness of idol worshippers. Since they carry the Idols from place to place and actually take care of the Idols http://historylink101.com/n/egypt_1/..._of_priest.htm

In the morning, the high priest breaks the seal, lights a torch to walk the god, says prayers, lights incense, washes the statue (which may be solid gold), places fresh clothing and jewels on it and places offerings of food and drink near it. Singers offer hymns of praise to the god. At the end of the day, the priest backs out of the shrine, sweeping away his footprints as he goes, and seals the sacred area again. (Pg. 43 Day, 2001)

Either way, God doesn't NEED anyone. He has many people to choose from. If you don't like him, fine with him. If you do, great.

[GreatOldOne]

You have claimed that if "God" exists, he MUST logically be evil. Your worldview in which he "does everything" is not the only extant or possible worldview. Your worldview in which evil results within our present temporal & perceived space = therefore absolutely evil is not the only extant, or possible worldview. Your worldview in which a lack of evil intent that results in evil is still evil is not the only extant or possible one (and the whole omnipotence, omniscience thing is an equally double-edged sword, so don't even bother with that).

In other words, your claim that if "God" exists, then the only possibility is that he is evil is dependent solely on your personal worldview which isn't the only possible one, or even a leading one (as if that matters).

Do you want me to answer this? You won't like it.

I'm not clear if you're venting or what.

I'll start with this...and you can go from here.

God is 'whatever underlies existence as we know it'.

So, there's no questioning. Only conclusions from what we know.

BTW the worldview where God does everything is the only logical one including an omnipotent God. God does free will as well. And whatever results from free will.

[zakatak333]

because he does not exist

trollface.jpg

[angrybird2411]

Follow me. Because he has like, ways, man and they are mysterious.

[tallguy29]

Free will .

Free will never explained a single action.

Free will says this, "I have no idea why, even if I did it, but something happened".

Ever watched the "saw" movies?
Even though the people were trapped, they had there own choices .
They chose what to do , either leading to there escape or very entertaining death.
Then you had that lady freak out and try sabotaging everything like satan.

Each one has free will and each would do his/her own way, influenced by what he/she feels is the right way. It's the character, traits that influence each one.
Therefore he or she does not have free will totally, it's limited by where he/she was born, raised and the kind of a person he or she is.

[boseador]

In Islam God states that he created man so he could feed the fires of hell.

[whatisbro]

In Islam God states that he created man so he could feed the fires of hell.

Quotes?

[eltigar]

In Islam God states that he created man so he could feed the fires of hell.

No , that's only people like you.
Notice I said people and not " men" in reference to you?

[tallguy29]

Ever watched the "saw" movies?
Even though the people were trapped, they had there own choices .
They chose what to do , either leading to there escape or very entertaining death.
Then you had that lady freak out and try sabotaging everything like satan.

Again...

Free will.

Have you noticed how your actions are influenced by how you reacted to something, earlier?
How your actions now are influenced by success or failure in your earlier attempt?

This demonstrates that your earlier action elicited a return response which is very much influencing your free will.

[whatisbro]

Again...

Free will.

Have you noticed how your actions are influenced by how you reacted to something, earlier?
How your actions now are influenced by success or failure in your earlier attempt?

This demonstrates that your earlier action elicited a return response which is very much influencing your free will.

Whether or not your free will is being influenced by something, you still make the decision on what the next move is going to be.

[tallguy29]

Whether or not your free will is being influenced by something, you still make the decision on what the next move is going to be.

You make the decision but your free will to take the decision is influenced by something.

And that means the freeness of your 'free will' is limited by the something.