Why did God create us

[Wildswanderer]

Incorrect. You also refuse to learn what qualifies as evidence. A proper definition is not prejudiced for either side.

You need to remember that when discussing the Bible it is not evidence. It is the claim.

Then the same applies to all men's theories about the past, which are never complete or totally correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then the same applies to all men's theories about the past, which are never complete or totally correct.

No, and once again you showed that you do not understand what evidence is. Evidence is not about being perfect.

 

[Madmogwai]

God said: “Let us make man in our image according to our likeness.” Ge 1:26

We've established that God has no form or physical body, so it stands to reason that the 'image' of God is in a similar way. It has to be invisible.

Do we have an invisible part to us? Yes we do. Our mind and conscience works as an abstract or invisible/intangible part of us. Our body is certainly physical, but our inner person is not.

Adam was imbued with the divine attributes of love, wisdom, justice, and power. These attributes are intangible and invisible and they are the 4 attributes of God himself.
And we were created with a conscience that could make make moral judgements. Humans are the only creature on earth with this ability. Animals are not driven by their conscience the way we are.

Does that answer your question?

There are animals that make moral decisions.

 

[Madmogwai]

As far as expecting Adam and Eve to exercise free will, that goes with the territory. In other words, they had quite a bit of freedom. Even children know they could not easily jump off a roof and think they might not get hurt. So there are differences of freedom. But the first man and woman were in a beautiful setting, where God placed them. They had food to eat, I'm sure it was delicious. They were just beginning their lives in a sense, even though they did not begin as babies. Genesis 2 brings out that Adam had exciting and pleasurable work to do.
"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."
So Adam had pleasant work to do, but also given the opportunity to name each animal.

And what language did he use because you can take an Animals name in any language and trace the origin of that name.
To think a man sat and did that is ridiculous.

 

[Brian2]

There are animals that make moral decisions.

Then again, we humans do tend to anthropomorphise. We see animal behaviour in terms of our behaviour and interpret it that way.

 

[Brian2]

And what language did he use because you can take an Animals name in any language and trace the origin of that name.
To think a man sat and did that is ridiculous.

Languages changed over time so we cannot trace languages back to Adam.
What better thing do you think Adam had to do?
Personally I don't think that Adam named each animal in the world anyway.

 

[rational experiences]

If every human is a human.

You have sex. You create human babies. Everyone ages and dies.

What is life's meaning?

You live.

Then you make statements as I live I should be treated the same as I want to be treated.

When you aren't you question why.

In animal behaviour the group gives you a what for if you don't act accordingly in your species type.

It's about time humans do the same.

Get the message yet greedy rich man brother?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Then again, we humans do tend to anthropomorphise. We see animal behaviour in terms of our behaviour and interpret it that way.

You might do so, but scientists try not to do this, and hence why they so often come up with such findings as to show that we are hardly unique - that we share so much with other life, and especially with those showing intelligence, social behaviour, and associated with both, moral behaviour.

 

[pearl]

It makes no sense that we would be cast in Gods image.

Depends on how you understand God's image, certainly not a physical one.

 

[YoursTrue]

And what language did he use because you can take an Animals name in any language and trace the origin of that name.
To think a man sat and did that is ridiculous.

I disagree with that analysis, but it's ok.

 

[Brian2]

You might do so, but scientists try not to do this, and hence why they so often come up with such findings as to show that we are hardly unique - that we share so much with other life, and especially with those showing intelligence, social behaviour, and associated with both, moral behaviour.

Even scientists can do the anthropomorphism thing imo. With science animals and humans are no different at a basic level and so animal behaviour and human behaviour can be seen as extension of the same line.
Our behaviour is not really moral in nature or animal behaviour has moral aspects just as our behaviour does.
So scientists, esp atheist scientists would be the ones who would do it more so than an Abrahamic probably. We Abrahamics (at least me anyway) see humans as knowing something about good and evil and that animals don't have that knowledge and so their behaviour is not related to morality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Even scientists can do the anthropomorphism thing imo. With science animals and humans are no different at a basic level and so animal behaviour and human behaviour can be seen as extension of the same line.
Our behaviour is not really moral in nature or animal behaviour has moral aspects just as our behaviour does.
So scientists, esp atheist scientists would be the ones who would do it more so than an Abrahamic probably. We Abrahamics (at least me anyway) see humans as knowing something about good and evil and that animals don't have that knowledge and so their behaviour is not related to morality.

Think and believe what you like, but when so many animals seem to exhibit the same sort of emotional reactions as humans, and often the same sorts of strategies - as to dominance in hierarchies, for example - it might seem churlish to think we are essentially different. As I've no doubt commented many times, it seems to be that religious beliefs alone sometimes keeps people away from accepting much of science (or their lack of intimacy with science doing so) - see this for example, recently in the news:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-09-psychological-distance-predictor-science.html

 

[Brian2]

Think and believe what you like, but when so many animals seem to exhibit the same sort of emotional reactions as humans, and often the same sorts of strategies - as to dominance in hierarchies, for example - it might seem churlish to think we are essentially different. As I've no doubt commented many times, it seems to be that religious beliefs alone sometimes keeps people away from accepting much of science (or their lack of intimacy with science doing so) - see this for example, recently in the news:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-09-psychological-distance-predictor-science.html

Yes I think that religious beliefs keep people away from accepting some of science. It certainly does for me even if I accept evolution.
But science has presumptions that aren't necessarily true and can lead science to say things that imo step into God's realm when science wants to say it all happened naturally. So for me and no doubt others it would be a case of drawing a line and where the line is drawn differs between people.
With some people of some groups the doubting of science is no doubt deeper than that.

 

[ppp]

But science has presumptions that aren't necessarily true and can lead science to say things that imo step into God's realm when science wants to say it all happened naturally.

But science does not say that it all happened naturally.

 

[Brian2]

But science does not say that it all happened naturally.

No that is true. The suggestion however is that there is no need for a God or outside intelligence however and people become deceived into thinking that what is being said by science is that science has discovered that God is not needed, when that has not been discovered at all.
But of course you aren't deceived by such suggestions of science and you know that science is not saying that no God is needed.

 

[ppp]

No that is true. The suggestion however is that there is no need for a God or outside intelligence however and people become deceived into thinking that what is being said by science is that science has discovered that God is not needed, when that has not been discovered at all.

There is no suggestion either. There is a statement. And that statement is, that until someone demonstrates the existence or likely existence of X that there is no rational basis to treat X as though X exists.

That is a statement that is both true and reasonable. The fact that your god falls within the set of X, is purely incidental.

But of course you aren't deceived by such suggestions of science and you know that science is not saying that no God is needed.

I am not deceived because there are no such suggestions in science. The statements that such "suggestions of science" exist are made and perpetuated by unscrupulous theists, and those who buy into their intentional misrepresentations of the sciences. In most of the United States, those theists are primarily evangelical and/or fundamentalist people who claim to follow Jesus. In Turkey, it is primarily those who claim to submit to the will of Allah. In Hollywood, it is the Xenu followers. Different religions. Same deceptions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are not created by any god. You came about via atoms and molecules,..

What exactly ARE atoms and molecules?
Almighty God is infinite .. He has no trouble in providing souls without limit..

Atoms could not exist without there being a reason for their existence.

 

[Bree]

There are animals that make moral decisions.

really?

which ones?

 

[Bree]

Languages changed over time so we cannot trace languages back to Adam.
What better thing do you think Adam had to do?
Personally I don't think that Adam named each animal in the world anyway.

its very reasonable to deduct that the Hebrew language was the original language of all people prior to the events of Bable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I think that religious beliefs keep people away from accepting some of science. It certainly does for me even if I accept evolution.
But science has presumptions that aren't necessarily true and can lead science to say things that imo step into God's realm when science wants to say it all happened naturally. So for me and no doubt others it would be a case of drawing a line and where the line is drawn differs between people.
With some people of some groups the doubting of science is no doubt deeper than that.

You might be misunderstanding science. The scientific method is a problem solving method so in that sense I do not know how "science says" anything about a God belief. I have seen those with religious beliefs quite often take their beliefs out of the religious area. for example the post directly above me about the Tower of Babble. There are events in the Bible that have been shown to be mythical.