Did God create man?

[Figleaf]

You seriously think there is an all powerful being that has nothing better to do with their time than to create not only the human race, but the entire universe?

"Nothing better to do with their time than to create ... the human race [and] the entire universe"

You make it sound as if creating the human race and entire universe is an insignificant waste of time. What do you think would be more worthwhile to do with one's time?

Well, God is supposed to be Omnipotent, so theoretically, he could create something better to do with his time, like a really cool videogame, or masturbation.

Also, theoretically, He could have created something better than humankind -- duplicated Himself, for example.

[Figleaf]

Well, how about a creating a functional human race that doesn't kill in "His" name.... for one?

God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing.

Did God create people or not?

Does God make things happen the way he wants, or is he subject to mistakes?

[Guest American Woman]

"Creating people" and controlling every aspect of that creation are two different things. People aren't robots. He created us with a brain, so it's up to us to use it as we will. He doesn't control our decisions, our every move. If He did, we'd have no need to think. Ever.

[Figleaf]

"

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Guest American Woman]

If an omnipotent God created people with certain characteristics, that God is responsible for those characteristics, and the consequences.

So do you think killing in His name is a characteristic of His creation of people? If so, wouldn't we all be doing it?

[Figleaf]

[.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[jazzer]

Well, how about a creating a functional human race that doesn't kill in "His" name.... for one?

God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing.

Yet God, on numerous occasions told man to kill man. Read Leviticus 20 sometime.

[BC_chick]

Well, how about a creating a functional human race that doesn't kill in "His" name.... for one?

God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing.

Nice try. I never said anything about creating people to kill in his name... I was asking why he created a people who do kill in his name.

Any idea?

[cybercoma]

Well, how about a creating a functional human race that doesn't kill in "His" name.... for one?

God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing.

God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, which begs the question, "why doesn't he end suffering?"

[cybercoma]

If an omnipotent God creates something, he is completely responsible for its nature and characteristics. An omnipotent being is incapable of unintended outcomes.

Omniscience allows him to know the outcomes. Omnipotence allows him to do something about it. Since he knows the outcomes and does nothing about it (see the holocaust, see Pol Pot's killing fields, see Atilla the Hun, see any number of examples in human history where completely innocent lives have been unreasonably snuffed out and/or tortured) it is pretty safe to say you can't call him benevolent.

[Melanie_]

Can god truly be omnipotent?

One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone: "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with.[3]

Omnipotence Paradox

[Mad_Michael]

Well, how about a creating a functional human race that doesn't kill in "His" name.... for one?

God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing.

Nice try. I never said anything about creating people to kill in his name... I was asking why he created a people who do kill in his name.

Any idea?

There are dozens of questions like this that Christian apologists don't like addressing.

How about the one about the Garden of Eden and the fruit of knowledge... why does God punish humans for seeking knowledge? Does God prefer humans to be ignorant?

Again, this one doesn't draw much in the way of response.

[ScottSA]

If an omnipotent God created people with certain characteristics, that God is responsible for those characteristics, and the consequences.

So do you think killing in His name is a characteristic of His creation of people? If so, wouldn't we all be doing it?

If an omnipotent God creates something, he is completely responsible for its nature and characteristics. An omnipotent being is incapable of unintended outcomes.

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

[Who's Doing What?]

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

[Mad_Michael]

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

According to Kant, all religion/faith exists entirely outside the realm of human knowledge. On this basis, any and all religions can easily withstand any logical argument.

However, it is the religious people themselves who push their religious claims into the realm of knowledge and that is where all the endless problems with logic and science begin (that never stand up to logical argument).

[Mad_Michael]

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Besides Deism, Paganism and Buddhism?

[fellowtraveller]

Ontario will have to make some choices in the next election and the Liberal MP's will have to tell Ontarians how their party really stands on this issue.

Look for a Conservative majority in the next election.

"Hands in your pocket" is the easiest way to make a voter decide which way to vote.

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Besides Deism, Paganism and Buddhism?

One of the tents of Buddhism is reincarnation, where the dead reappear at a different plane of existence, somewhere between a cockroach and a human, depending on your behaviour in the current life.

I'd like to know who and where is The Big Scorekeeper In The Sky, whatever deity is in charge of assessing current life perofrmance and making the new assigments.

[Who's Doing What?]

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Besides Deism, Paganism and Buddhism?

I believe I said "religions which have a god".

[Mad_Michael]

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Besides Deism, Paganism and Buddhism?

I believe I said "religions which have a god".

And what part of Deism, Paganism or Buddhism doesn't apply here?

[Mad_Michael]

Ontario will have to make some choices in the next election and the Liberal MP's will have to tell Ontarians how their party really stands on this issue.

Look for a Conservative majority in the next election.

"Hands in your pocket" is the easiest way to make a voter decide which way to vote.

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Besides Deism, Paganism and Buddhism?

One of the tents of Buddhism is reincarnation, where the dead reappear at a different plane of existence, somewhere between a cockroach and a human, depending on your behaviour in the current life.

A point of faith that is capable of withstanding logical argument.

[Who's Doing What?]

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Besides Deism, Paganism and Buddhism?

I believe I said "religions which have a god".

And what part of Deism, Paganism or Buddhism doesn't apply here?

And the GOD in Bhuddhism is who?

[Who's Doing What?]

A point of faith that is capable of withstanding logical argument.

Right. Just ask Shirley Maclean.

[Catchme]

People have little or no comprehension of the infinite, or eternity. Most look and understand with finite lenses. As such, it is difficult to grasp fully, or even closely, what omnipotent/omnipresence is or could be for many.

[Mad_Michael]

Unless you are omnipotent, how do you know that? The thing I find most notable about swealian arrogance is that it doesn't hesitate for a second before plunging ahead with see-through Sophist ninnery, so convinced of its own infallability that it doesn't even see the gaping holes in its armour.

Speaking of gaping holes, find any religions which have a god, that can actually stand up to a logical argument?

Besides Deism, Paganism and Buddhism?

I believe I said "religions which have a god".

And what part of Deism, Paganism or Buddhism doesn't apply here?

And the GOD in Bhuddhism is who?

God is the sum totality of the universe.

And your point is? Or are you just trying to 'run out the clock' as a dodge strategy hoping your little game here will difuse the critique against your argument?

[Who's Doing What?]

God is the sum totality of the universe.

And your point is? Or are you just trying to 'run out the clock' as a dodge strategy hoping your little game here will difuse the critique against your argument?

So you are saying that in Bhuddhism there is a god that is worshipped, and this god is "the sum totality of the universe"?