Who is God?

[YoursTrue]

That makes no sense at all. God is of infinite nature.

He explains much of himself in the holy scriptures. We have not reached the paradise that is promised in the Bible. Since God can do anything He wants to, He can also refuse to "see" the future of each and every one of us. To think He knew in advance that Adam and Eve would sin is not in harmony with reasonableness. He is not a God of confusion, but of order. To say that He knew before they sinned that they would sin is not in harmony with a loving and merciful God. Which he is. He told the truth to Adam. Adam decided.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you believe in God, then the accusation finally goes back to God.
In my case, since I do not accept existence of God, so it is people.
If you believe in God, you cannot absolve God of the crime of the kind of world he has created.

Thank you for your expression. Yes, I believe in God. You bring to mind that there is a purpose to God allowing what He did when Adam and Eve sinned and the subsequent actions that followed.

 

[LuisDantas]

God who?

 

[dybmh]

No. If a person is 10% bad, then he/she is bad. The fault cannot/should not be overlooked, especially when it comes to the proposed God or soul.
I don't. The religious do. For me the God and soul do not exist. I am an atheist.
I cannot be grateful to an imaginary entity.
You believe in existence of God (and soul). I have no such belief.

Which would you choose a world with 10% evil, or no world at all?

 

[dybmh]

God who?

Yes! The question is the answer!

 

[dybmh]

To think He knew in advance that Adam and Eve would sin is not in harmony with reasonableness.

Unless it was a trap for the serpent.

 

[DNB]

I would happily determine whether I wished to be a sincere and devout adherent if only there were something more substantial than words and concepts to adhere to.

Perhaps not. But I don't see the analogy. Either I vote for X or I vote for Y or I vote informal or I go to my favorite bar and do none of those things.

If God is a candidate for selection, let [him] step up, and state [his] policies ─ how [he] would deal with Covid, the Ukraine, global warming, the inequality of nations, the Taiwan question, the road toll. If [he] has no such policies, what's the point? If [he] has such policies but doesn't tell anyone, what's the point? If [his] purported human representatives on earth, the leaders of any faith, including Patriarch Kirill (who thinks it's fine to invade Ukraine), can't agree, why would we think God had any policies, any benevolent intentions, at all?

Well, I'm more than happy to witness any satisfactory demonstration of the objective reality of God ─ but since there's never been an authenticated appearance to humans by any God, let alone a statement of [his] policies, pardon me while I don't hold my breath.

No, I can't see an 'architect' behind the design and creation of the universe. If the purpose of the universe was to bring humans into being then such a creator's techniques are inefficient to the point of absurdity, since the universe appears to be about 14 bn years old, and to contain no one knows the exact number but one guesstimate says 20 to 21 septillion stars, with however many planets that may entail. And yet intelligent life as we understand the term is known to exist on only one planet in the universe, and has only been around, in the form of H. sap, for maybe two million years, and H sap sap for maybe 200,000 years. Oh, and artificial intelligence, which has taken serious forms in the last two decades.

This makes much more sense if purely by chance we're one of the rare goldilocks planets where conditions for life are possible, and natural forces and chance have thrown up the first self-reproducing cell, whence evolution, with more than 3 billion years to play with, has done the rest.

Something does not evolve from nothing. Meaning, a organism must contain the dna within it in order for it to either evolve or morph into an elaborated or transitioned creature of itself. Sand can never evolve into a monkey, nor does a stone convert to a bumblebee or fish.
If you think that the astronomical numbers of celestial objects increase the likelihood to a plausible degree, of a planet containing the diversity, intricacies and sophistication of life as that of what we have on earth, you still haven't adequately addressed the necessity of an architect.

The earth is designed, as are all living creatures and inanimate forms within it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Unless it was a trap for the serpent.

Interesting thought. We humans always place ourselves, often unconsciously, at the centre of every narrative. This may be a function of our individual perspective; change the perspective, change the perception and the emphasis.

 

[blü 2]

Something does not evolve from nothing. Meaning, a organism must contain the dna within it in order for it to either evolve or morph into an elaborated or transitioned creature of itself. Sand can never evolve into a monkey, nor does a stone convert to a bumblebee or fish.

Well, it's true that we haven't yet demonstrated a natural path from chemistry to biochemistry, so we don't know how the first cell (or cells) formed, but we're working on it, and every now and then we add a new insight, a new possibility, a new explanation of a possible stage, to our kit. No evidence suggests that there's nothing there to be found.

And once we have the first successful self-reproducing cell, the rest is evolution. The world of living things can evolve a great deal with more than 3 billion years to evolve in. I assume you're familiar with "tree" diagrams showing how things evolved in various ways, and how each of those ways went on to become different versions of their source.

If you think that the astronomical numbers of celestial objects increase the likelihood to a plausible degree, of a planet containing the diversity, intricacies and sophistication of life as that of what we have on earth, you still haven't adequately addressed the necessity of an architect.

You haven't the slightest evidence for such an architect, what it could be or how it could operate to control structures, or genetic developments. If you did, you'd have the immediate and intense attention of science.

But apart from folklore, which provided explanations back when evidence-based explanations weren't possible, you have nothing ─ arguments from incredulity have no rational traction.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not familiar with that aspect. Do you believe it though? sounds like a long way off to me...

I do not. I am an atheist and follow non-duality (Advaita). All this is for believers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I did not invent the Bible. However, I appreciate what it says about everlasting life in peace which is promised. Here's why it makes sense to me -- death, as far as I am concerned, is not a friend. And the things I see on the earth such as birds singing, animals playing, music, good food, are all things I enjoy. I hope that makes sense so far to you. I know it doesn't explain everything, but I hope it's a start. I appreciate your kind attitude.

True, you did not; other people did. We differ here - I do not believe in life after death. We live only once to enjoy birds singing, animals playing, music, good food, etc. Yeah, it does make sense to me, but we have our time limits. All things have that, even a stone. Death is neither a friend nor an enemy, it is a fact of life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Which would you choose a world with 10% evil, or no world at all?

Do I have an option?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Something does not evolve from nothing.

I do not know. It is not very scientific to say that. There are possibilities, many scientists opine that (including Hawkins, the modern-day Einstein).

Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[muhammad_isa]

He told the truth to Adam. Adam decided..

I never said that Adam did not have free-will.
I'm saying that G-d knew that Adam would sin.

 

[Colt]

Who is on first!

 

[dybmh]

Do I have an option?

The question is can you accept a flaw for a greater good? It's not a theistic question. It's pragmatic.

 

[dybmh]

Interesting thought. We humans always place ourselves, often unconsciously, at the centre of every narrative. This may be a function of our individual perspective; change the perspective, change the perception and the emphasis.

Yes. And from the serpent's perspective, naturally, it's going to be angry. Many people hate the serpent, but I have pity on it. And from the human perspective, anger, resentment, fear, is also natural. Why was the serpent trapped instead of eliminated? And why was it trapped here, in the material world with us? Knowing the answer isn't very saticfying, but understanding it is sublime.

 

[YoursTrue]

I never said that Adam did not have free-will.
I'm saying that G-d knew that Adam would sin.

I'm saying it doesn't make sense that God Almighty would know in advance that Adam would sin. If He did, it becomes a sham. Be that as it may, have a good one and take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not know. It is not very scientific to say that. There are possibilities, many scientists opine that (including Hawkins, the modern-day Einstein).

Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Goodness! Hawking changed his mind upon occasion. Plus -- he didn't really "know." he just figured it could have happened as he opined based on what he figured as a primary base. He did not know.

 

[dybmh]

If He did, it becomes a sham.

It was necessary.