who created God

last SG · 2012-07-11T19:59:57+00:00

What God?Hindus have their Gods.Muslims have their God.Christians have their God.Primitive people have their God.And there are many more.All claim their God...

BroInChrist SG

these fanatics are also atheists, why?

would they believe in Islam, buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Brahmanism, Taoism? that makes them also an atheists. pity they are blind to that.

That's Jacky abusing definitions again.

BroInChrist SG

"The Christian must concede he doesn't know."

Would the Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jain, Catholics, Jews, or any other who believes in God knows?

Associating God with paradise is shallow.

I always advocate think. Never mind if you are wrong, but try to think with a little more depth.

Doesn't know what?

Why is it shallow to associate God with paradise?

Jesus said to love God with our minds too. If you think Christianity teaches us not to think or disparage thinking then you are most wrong. One can think deeply and be deeply confused and wrong. We need the proper lenses to view God's world, and God's Word is the lenses by which we understand God's world.

BroInChrist SG

"Playing word replacement game is easy, any bloke can play this game. Question is, after changing the words can you support what is being said? For atheism, the answer is a resounding NO."

How would you know when you are not an atheist? Would anyone consult a doctor for toothache when there's an available dentist? Feel free to voice your opinions that nobody asked...

"You are shifting goalpost and invoking strawman here, the issue is not whether you believe IN something, but whether you believe THAT something exists. The person who knows nothing believes nothing. But the atheist claims to know that there is no God. Or if he is being less dogmatic about it he claims he does not believe there is a God. So either the atheists KNOWS or BELIEVES there is no God. Unless the atheist wants to defend a knowledge that he claims he does not have, I don't see how you can evade the need for faith."

I have been very consistent. I using different ways of expressions for you to understand. Its your misinterpretations that's causing your confusion. You liked to appear smart (mis)using the various fallacies however the opposite is true...
One who knows no god believes in no god... One who knows god, believes according to one faith. No knowledge, no faith. No faith, no believe. What God is to you, is but an sign of delusion to atheist. What knowledge is to atheist is but a rejection of godly faith to you. Faith is needed to believe in anything. How can one believe without knowing what is it to be believed?

"I read your link, but you did not read mine. Too bad then, it shows you just conclude without doing due diligence. Don't be lazy."

Read my quoted post carefully... I posted "...click the links... to find out more?" Read and understand before believing whatever assumptions you have.

"You did comment on the question? When? Which post? Before or after I pointed that you didn't?"

You did not even realized that you had quoted previously that part which I commented on the question... Is it even possible for the born blind to fully understand colors using just words?

"Having problem with the dictionary lately? Dictionary.com defines mistake as

1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
2. a misunderstanding or misconception.
3. to regard or identify wrongly as something or someone else: I mistook him for the mayor.
4. to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret.

In this context "They did made a mistake for not obeying God", its number one. What problem were you implying?

"How does the above relates to Adam's rebellion? God said not to eat but they did. If this is not rebellion then what? "

I will not feed you just to compel you to look up any dictionary of your choice on "rebellion" since its like a hobby to you now. After that answer this "How were they resisting authority, control or convention?"

"To call that a mistake is really to downplay sin."

It was a mistake as everybody is a sinner. Whats is there to downplay when everybody is a sinner?

If children disobey their parent's instructions you call that a mistake?"

Its possible that number 1~4 definitions aptlys describe mistake in your context correctly.

"Your English is bad. To take the fruit when it is forbidden to do so, that act of eating of the fruit IS sin."

This is concerning.... Which is worse? Bad English or poor understanding?

"So convenient, did not show how my premise is incorrect just ignore the whole thing I said. And then say no need to elaborate because I did not figure something out, but also never show what I did not figure out. What a cop out."

See above reply.... To elaborate, White Dust was asking about my position. I believe that the tree of knowledge of good and evil served a purpose other than the conventional idea of testing the duo who were doomed to fail by omniscience of God and perfect hindsight. That was the premise that was lost on you.

"Fact is, intellectual honesty demands an admission that REDEFINING atheism as lack of belief is an evasive debate tactic to avoid the burden of proof. Another intellectual cop-out, which of course atheists will deny it with all their might. See http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god"

Intellectual honesty? Demands? Is it necessity or mandatory or a right? By which or whose standard? Is it God's? Or is it just you?

"Looks like a face-saving tactic to me. Kena exposed for blunder then turnaround and said the misinterpretations were intentional. Duh...."

Would I be of concern of your un-Jesus like ways? *waves to ward off the irritant.*

Why must I be an atheist to know that atheism is not supported by the evidence or consistent with science? It's OK to ask me questions, don't have to deprecate yourself by calling yourself a nobody.

You still failed to understand simple English. On what basis does an atheist claims to KNOW there is no God? Does he knows all there is to know in order to conclude that there is no God? The atheist KNOWS what the theist is talking about in referring to God. The atheist can only feign ignorance. He does not lack the belief that God exists, he REJECTS the belief that God exists. Please stop playing semantic games.

Whatever it is, you obviously did not read my link. You just saw it was a blog site and you simply dismissed it.

You evaded my question again, your comment came BEFORE or AFTER I mentioned that you have not commented on the question "Does God exist"?

For you it is a case of BOTH bad English and wrong understanding. Adam did not suffer from poor reasoning, carelessness or insufficient knowledge when he chose to eat of the forbidden fruit. God's Word is the authority. If rejecting God's Word is not resisting authority, what is?

Prior to Adam taking the fruit and eating it, he was NOT a sinner. Again your lack of Bible knowledge shows itself. Yes, it's a LACK of knowledge which should be made up for with knowledge. But Adam did not lack any knowledge about why he should not eat from the tree. A clear command was given. A direct act of disobedience was committed. Simple as that. Don't downplay things by calling it a mistake or complicate the story.

Your take on the tree of knowledge was not lost on me. It was WRONG and I pointed out why. Who cares about your private take on what it means to you? A Bible exegete is concerned with what the text means, not what the text means to him personally. You don't determine what the text means, but you discover what the text means. Haiz...I wonder if you can even tell the difference.

Intellectual honesty also you want to play daft with? And don't deflect things please. You were obviously trying to save face by saying that you intentionally misinterpreted things AFTER being exposed.

BroInChrist SG

Yup! That's right! As for the problem of evil, one has to ask "What is the right time?" Is allowing Hitler and Stalin to exist part of a non-evil plan? The whole idea that God will do it sometime is somewhat unconvincing if one doesn't affirm belief in such a deity. The premises conflict insofar as not all 3 premises can be correct at the same time. Is God willing to prevent evil but not willing? Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Is God both willing and able to prevent evil - then where cometh evil? (Echoing Epicrurus' question). I think the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga captures it eloquently in the following passage.

"Why does God permit all this evil, and evil of these horrifying kinds, in his world? How can they be seen as fitting in with his loving and providential care for his creatures?... The Christian must concede he doesn't know. That is, he doesn't know in any detail. On a quite general level, he may know that God permits evil because he can achieve a world he sees as better by permitting evil than by preventing it; and what God sees as better is, of course, better. But we cannot see why our world with all its ills, would be better than others we think we can imagine, or what, in any detail, is God's reason for permitting a given specific and appalling evil. Not only can we not see this, we can't think of any very good possibilities. And here I must say that most attempts to explainwhy God permits evil—theodicies, as we may call them—strike me as tepid, shallow and ultimately frivolous. Does evil provide us with an opportunity for spiritual growth, so that this world can be seen as a vale of soul-making? Perhaps some evils can be seen this way; but much leads not to growth but to apparent spiritual disaster. Is it suggested that the existence of evil provides the opportunity for such goods as the display of mercy, sympathy, self-sacrifice in the service of others? Again, no doubt some evil can be seen this way.... But much evil seems to elicit cruelty rather than sacrificial love. And neither of these suggestions, I think, takes with sufficient seriousness the sheer hideousness of some of the evils we see."

* Alvin Plantinga, Self Profile, Page 35, 1985.

The disciples also asked Jesus before He ascended to heaven, "What time you coming back to restore all things?" I am sure you know Jesus' reply to them. But you are right, any answer is unconvincing to an atheist. But then again, the atheist issue is not more Bible knowledge but the issue of God's existence.

The premises themselves do not conflict necessarily, unless you supply another premise to make it so. Like I said, any perceived conflict among the premises is dissipated by the Biblical teaching that the removal of evil WILL take place in the near future.

I agree with Plantinga that the Christian only knows in part. That is not a problem for Christians at all. We are not promised all the knowledge and whys of this world, but we are commanded to place our trust and hope in God who will put all things right in His time. While everyone demands total answers from God, He is not obligated to us. He has already told us what we NEED to know in the Bible. The atheist may not accept this answer but I don't see how he can fault it as wrong or illogical or irrational.

White Dust SG

I don't see a need for another premise to make it incompatible through. Yes, one may not accept an answer but that doesn't imply that the answer is wrong. I fully understand this mutual tolerance or the "I respect your beliefs; you respect mine" kind of pluralistic thinking and I agree with that. But in order to convince an unbeliever, you have to appeal to objective things, not just subjective revelations which, may be convincing to some and not others.

Aneslayer SG

"Why must I be an atheist to know that atheism is not supported by the evidence or consistent with science?"

And so is with theism.

"It's OK to ask me questions, don't have to deprecate yourself by calling yourself a nobody."

A display of lack of understanding....

"You still failed to understand simple English."

Yay I made a new term! Appeal to ironically ridicule!

"On what basis does an atheist claims to KNOW there is no God?"

For the third time... Not claims, not say, not declare.

"Does he knows all there is to know in order to conclude that there is no God?"

Does anyone knows all there is to now in order to conclude anything about anything?Unless you know all there is to know to conclude that there is a God... that is a different story.....

"The atheist KNOWS what the theist is talking about in referring to God. The atheist can only feign ignorance. He does not lack the belief that God exists, he REJECTS the belief that God exists."

The atheist knows what the theist is talking about fiction. The atheist can only reject it as truth. He rejects the belief of theist that God exist.

"Whatever it is, you obviously did not read my link. You just saw it was a blog site and you simply dismissed it."

Baseless assumption... pointless silliness... However, I'd still recommend you clicking the links of my link.

"You evaded my question again, your comment came BEFORE or AFTER I mentioned that you have not commented on the question "Does God exist"?"

The prosecution must provide evidence to convict the accused guilty, not the other way round silly. I told you on my previous post that you had quoted that part which I commented on the question prior to my immediate reply to your 1st query. You really must learn to read... especially what you have quoted to reply coherently....

"For you it is a case of BOTH bad English and wrong understanding."

Perhaps, if you realized, you are right.

"Adam did not suffer from poor reasoning, carelessness or insufficient knowledge when he chose to eat of the forbidden fruit."

But he did. He was persuade by Eve. His "sinless" reasoning was disrupted by Eve's words. A mistake no less.

"God's Word is the authority. If rejecting God's Word is not resisting authority, what is?"

There is a difference between "rejecting" and "resisting". You would know if you checked your dictionaries before using them in your above sentence.

"Prior to Adam taking the fruit and eating it, he was NOT a sinner. "

I know, right?

"Again your lack of Bible knowledge shows itself"

Appeal to ridicule...

"Yes, it's a LACK of knowledge which should be made up for with knowledge. But Adam did not lack any knowledge about why he should not eat from the tree. A clear command was given. A direct act of disobedience was committed. Simple as that. Don't downplay things by calling it a mistake or complicate the story."

He knows he should not but take the bite anyway, that means his reasoning was flawed. A "sinless" man with a flawed reasoning. What would you argue that made him sin? It would be simpler to call it a mistake as sin would comlicate things. The sin is not taking the fruit but disobedience to God. That is when I realize conventionally believed sin is overrated.

"Your take on the tree of knowledge was not lost on me. It was WRONG and I pointed out why. "

No you didn't, however you like to believe.

" Who cares about your private take on what it means to you?"

I was replying to someone else and some smartass interrupted...

"A Bible exegete is concerned with what the text means, not what the text means to him personally. You don't determine what the text means, but you discover what the text means. Haiz...I wonder if you can even tell the difference."

You point? Or should I be concerned of opinions?

"Intellectual honesty also you want to play daft with?"

Coming from you, its epic ironic .

"And don't deflect things please."

And you said it in a away like you never did. *sniggles...

"You were obviously trying to save face by saying that you intentionally misinterpreted things AFTER being exposed."

If you believed it, so be it. Opinions won't matter to me. Jesus does.

BroInChrist SG

The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC) stated the classic form of the problem of evil. His syllogism may be stated:

1. If a perfectly good God exists, then there is no evil in the world.

2. There is evil in the world.

3. Therefore, a perfectly good God does not exist.

The logic behind the argument, again attributed to Epicurus, runs thus: “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”

Biblically and philosophically, Epicurus’ first syllogistic point is false since a perfectly good God who allows free will can exist and thus, his syllogism fails. Epicurus’ logic behind the argument fails because he proposes a restricted number of options—it is a false dichotomy. Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or He can, but does not want to. Yet, biblically and philosophically a third option is that God wants to abolish evil and can, yet He functions on his own timing and He has not done it yet because He has a higher purpose in allowing evil to persist for a time. God created a world without evil which He called "very good" at the end of creation week. It is thus not a matter of God's will or God's ability, but a matter of God's ETERNAL PURPOSE as revealed in Ephesians.

I am sure you would agree that it is hard to convince someone who refuses to be convinced. So I think the test is not whether an unbeliever is convinced, but whether the argument itself is valid and sound on its own merits, and adequately supported by the evidence. An argument can be unconvincing to A but convincing to B and a lot depends on one's existing belief system. It would be unhelpful to say that B is uncritical and unthinking and gullible just as it would be to say that A is playing hard to catch or incapable to respond to a good argument.

Are you referring to the Bible as a subjective revelation? I beg to differ. In addition, the Christian, while basing his thinking on the Bible, does not just restrict himself to the Bible but is free to use evidences from other fields to support his argument.