Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[SkepticThinker]

In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperatly hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith as I mentioned before. They are so afraid of connecting God with science, that like the Japanese Army of World WarII, they would rather die than surrender. Unfortunately, the staunhest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige. But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud. Perhaps it made sense for what was known when On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today. So, now its your turn, present something that you know is fact about your empirical eveidence for how life began, how it is remotely possible for the cell to begin and develop.

There is no overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong. ALL existing evidence points to evolution, which is why it is a scientific theory akin to gravity or germ theory. The exact same scientific method that is used to determine everything else that you accept is used to determine the veracity of evolutionary theory. Nobody has ever been able to falsify evolutionary theory, so that should tell you something very important. The evidence in favor of evolution has multiplied exponentially since 1859 to the point that biology doesn’t even make sense without it.

So excuse me if I dismiss your above statements for the ludicrous argument it is. It is nothing more than conspiracy theory. You’re trying to tell me that thousands of scientists all over the world are making up evidence or something (and they’ve been doing this for over 150 years!) so that they simply don’t have to accept that your god exists? Do you know how silly that sounds? The information gleaned from scientific studies is available to the public for all to view. There’s nothing secretive about it. If evolution were bogus, nobody would be able to hide that fact.

Maybe you’re under the impression that if evolutionary theory were falsified, that somehow by default, that would make creationism true, but you’re under a false impression if you believe that. Creationism still needs to be demonstrated. Furthermore, many, people find no problem accepting the theory of evolution while still believing in a god, so apparently they are not mutually exclusive things.

But here’s what you do if you want to even begin to attempt to topple evolutionary theory: You carry out scientific studies that falsify it. You DEMONSTRATE that it is wrong. You get these papers published in scientific journals for other scientists to critique, and to try to repeat and verify your results. IF you can do this, and IF your results can be verified, (good luck!) then, and only then can you say that evolutionary theory is wrong. That’s how science works, and that’s how you win in the marketplace of scientific ideas. That’s how you get your ideas into the science curriculum. You don’t just get to make declarations and empty assertions. It doesn’t work that way.

I don't see what the point would be in providing you with evidence for how life began since we're talking about evolution, which doesn't speak to that. But to me, it sounds like you probably should have paid attention all those years you say evolution was “crammed down your throat” because you really don’t seem to understand it and you seem to be under a lot of misapprehensions about it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe cause crap is good for the flowers but an ** is just an ****













I know that was lame but got to be a point or two for quickness

Works for me!

 

[Rapture Era]

There is no overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong. ALL existing evidence points to evolution, which is why it is a scientific theory akin to gravity or germ theory. The exact same scientific method that is used to determine everything else that you accept is used to determine the veracity of evolutionary theory. Nobody has ever been able to falsify evolutionary theory, so that should tell you something very important. The evidence in favor of evolution has multiplied exponentially since 1859 to the point that biology doesn’t even make sense without it.

So excuse me if I dismiss your above statements for the ludicrous argument it is. It is nothing more than conspiracy theory. You’re trying to tell me that thousands of scientists all over the world are making up evidence or something (and they’ve been doing this for over 150 years!) so that they simply don’t have to accept that your god exists? Do you know how silly that sounds? The information gleaned from scientific studies is available to the public for all to view. There’s nothing secretive about it. If evolution were bogus, nobody would be able to hide that fact.

Maybe you’re under the impression that if evolutionary theory were falsified, that somehow by default, that would make creationism true, but you’re under a false impression if you believe that. Creationism still needs to be demonstrated. Furthermore, many, people find no problem accepting the theory of evolution while still believing in a god, so apparently they are not mutually exclusive things.

But here’s what you do if you want to even begin to attempt to topple evolutionary theory: You carry out scientific studies that falsify it. You DEMONSTRATE that it is wrong. You get these papers published in scientific journals for other scientists to critique, and to try to repeat and verify your results. IF you can do this, and IF your results can be verified, (good luck!) then, and only then can you say that evolutionary theory is wrong. That’s how science works, and that’s how you win in the marketplace of scientific ideas. That’s how you get your ideas into the science curriculum. You don’t just get to make declarations and empty assertions. It doesn’t work that way.

I don't see what the point would be in providing you with evidence for how life began since we're talking about evolution, which doesn't speak to that. But to me, it sounds like you probably should have paid attention all those years you say evolution was “crammed down your throat” because you really don’t seem to understand it and you seem to be under a lot of misapprehensions about it.

You say "I don't see what the point would be in providing you with evidence for how life began since we're talking about evolution, which doesn't speak to that. " What then, is the starting point for the evolution theory that you are so entrenched in? Remember that a theory is something that has been extensively tested and is generally accepted. How has evolution been extensively tested? More importantly, what have been the results of the tests? Any examples?
Apparently you must have the empirical scientific evidence to which you so firmly stand, so, lets see it! Empirical evidence is a provable fact that shows unquestionable results. It is the observable proof that knowledge was gained by data, rather than hypothesis, theory or conjecture. The Scientific Method you mentioned above is something Im excited for you to explain, especially its veracity to the theory.
You mentioned above that " You’re trying to tell me that thousands of scientists all over the world are making up evidence or something (and they’ve been doing this for over 150 years!) so that they simply don’t have to accept that your god exists? Do you know how silly that sounds? You do know that some of the top scientists in the field are leaning towards a designer even thought they are Christsians? Silly or not, can you name one, just one scientist that has gotten the Nobel Prize for proving beyond any doubt that evolution is true? Because if they were able to do this, not only would they get the Nobel Prize but every other prize that is available and I'd bet there would be a few more that would be made just for the occasion! And as far as I know, none has come forward, not one. What to me sounds silly? Is that you dont address whatever it is that started your evolutionary process in the first place! It's kind of important!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You say "I don't see what the point would be in providing you with evidence for how life began since we're talking about evolution, which doesn't speak to that. " What then, is the starting point for the evolution theory that you are so entrenched in? Remember that a theory is something that has been extensively tested and is generally accepted. How has evolution been extensively tested? More importantly, what have been the results of the tests? Any examples?

You don't have to have a specific experiment for evolution but simply experiments and evidence gathering studies that can support a theory. So I don't have to have a control and a variable in a lab to provide evidence for a theory. But here are some experiments that were done on evolution. This isn't even coutning all of the DNA discoveries that only make sense when looked at through the lense of evolution or embriology.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029150610.htm

Apparently you must have the empirical scientific evidence to which you so firmly stand, so, lets see it! Empirical evidence is a provable fact that shows unquestionable results. It is the observable proof that knowledge was gained by data, rather than hypothesis, theory or conjecture. The Scientific Method you mentioned above is something Im excited for you to explain, especially its veracity to the theory.

There is an entire thread that has been sticked for just this occasion. Go to that thread and read. I won't spoonfeed you something. ITs RIGHT THERE.

You mentioned above that " You’re trying to tell me that thousands of scientists all over the world are making up evidence or something (and they’ve been doing this for over 150 years!) so that they simply don’t have to accept that your god exists? Do you know how silly that sounds? You do know that some of the top scientists in the field are leaning towards a designer even thought they are Christsians? Silly or not, can you name one, just one scientist that has gotten the Nobel Prize for proving beyond any doubt that evolution is true? Because if they were able to do this, not only would they get the Nobel Prize but every other prize that is available and I'd bet there would be a few more that would be made just for the occasion! And as far as I know, none has come forward, not one. What to me sounds silly? Is that you dont address whatever it is that started your evolutionary process in the first place! It's kind of important!

Um...how about last year? In 2012 there was a pair of scientists that won the nobel prize in chemistry because they figured out the origins to the G-Protien receptors that allowed simple single celled organisms to open and close their membranes to allow the passage of nutrients which was a major evolutionary step at the early start of life.


Nobel Prize for Chemistry « Why Evolution Is True

 

[McBell]

So, now its your turn, present something that you know is fact about your empirical eveidence for how life began, how it is remotely possible for the cell to begin and develop.

What post did you present empirical evidence for how life began?

Well?

 

[McBell]

There is an entire thread that has been sticked for just this occasion. Go to that thread and read. I won't spoonfeed you something. ITs RIGHT THERE.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eference-faqs-tutorials-theory-evolution.html

 

[averageJOE]

You say "I don't see what the point would be in providing you with evidence for how life began since we're talking about evolution, which doesn't speak to that. " What then, is the starting point for the evolution theory that you are so entrenched in? Remember that a theory is something that has been extensively tested and is generally accepted. How has evolution been extensively tested? More importantly, what have been the results of the tests? Any examples?
Apparently you must have the empirical scientific evidence to which you so firmly stand, so, lets see it! Empirical evidence is a provable fact that shows unquestionable results. It is the observable proof that knowledge was gained by data, rather than hypothesis, theory or conjecture. The Scientific Method you mentioned above is something Im excited for you to explain, especially its veracity to the theory.
You mentioned above that " You’re trying to tell me that thousands of scientists all over the world are making up evidence or something (and they’ve been doing this for over 150 years!) so that they simply don’t have to accept that your god exists? Do you know how silly that sounds? You do know that some of the top scientists in the field are leaning towards a designer even thought they are Christsians? Silly or not, can you name one, just one scientist that has gotten the Nobel Prize for proving beyond any doubt that evolution is true? Because if they were able to do this, not only would they get the Nobel Prize but every other prize that is available and I'd bet there would be a few more that would be made just for the occasion! And as far as I know, none has come forward, not one. What to me sounds silly? Is that you dont address whatever it is that started your evolutionary process in the first place! It's kind of important!

It seems that your faith is so weak that the theory of evolution some how threatens existence of your god.

 

[johnhanks]

What then, is the starting point for the evolution theory that you are so entrenched in?

The starting point for evolutionary theory is a population of organisms with a given gene pool. The theory states that given random mutation and other sources of genetic variation plus some form of selection, the population's gene pool will change over time. This has been extensively tested and is in no serious doubt. Given enough time, the gene pool may change so much the population has become a new species; and given very many generations, these species may diverge into new families, orders or higher taxa.
Like most creationists, you are confusing evolutionary theory with theories of abiogenesis. You will find several articles on abiogenesis here, and I particularly recommend this one. Contrary to most creationist belief, abiogenesis is a well established field of science with many promising lines of research.

How has evolution been extensively tested?

Where to start? Pretty well every major advance in biology is a test of the theory of evolution: there have been plenty of opportunities for some new discovery to prove incompatible with the theory, but so far this has not happened. Take palaeontology: it would only take the discovery of a single bed of Precambrian fossils with vertebrate bones scattered among them to deal evolution a death-blow. Perhaps you should be out there digging.
If you prefer to be more up-to-date, DNA sequencing has revolutionised much of molecular biology. Think how embarrassing it would have been for evolutionary biology if human DNA had turned out to be more similar to a horse's than a chimp's; but no, DNA sequences turn out to be pretty much in line with all the other evolutionary evidence. Guess we've passed again.

 

[Rapture Era]

It seems that your faith is so weak that the theory of evolution some how threatens existence of your god.

Really? How so?

 

[Rapture Era]

Well?

LOL! Yeah throw it back on me.

 

[Rapture Era]

[/color][/font][/size]

You don't have to have a specific experiment for evolution but simply experiments and evidence gathering studies that can support a theory. So I don't have to have a control and a variable in a lab to provide evidence for a theory. But here are some experiments that were done on evolution. This isn't even coutning all of the DNA discoveries that only make sense when looked at through the lense of evolution or embriology. DNA in itself screams intelligence design! Not mutation/natural selection. I mean really, have you seen how DNA works? How can you with a straight face make sense of DNA looking through the lens of evolution or embriology?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029150610.htm
There is an entire thread that has been sticked for just this occasion. Go to that thread and read. I won't spoonfeed you something. ITs RIGHT THERE.
You dont need to spoon feed me anything, Im asking you and your fellow evolutionists how you think life as we know it, (all of it) came to be and what is the foundation of your belief?, specifically. It had to start from point A right? What is your point A? It also had to have the right elements in place exactly at the same time to work, yes? What were those elements? We will forget for a moment about all the things that had to be in place such as the universe, our solar system and the positioning of these planets and moons for point A to even exist, but go ahead, whats your thought?

Um...how about last year? In 2012 there was a pair of scientists that won the nobel prize in chemistry because they figured out the origins to the G-Protien receptors that allowed simple single celled organisms to open and close their membranes to allow the passage of nutrients which was a major evolutionary step at the early start of life.
Nobel Prize for Chemistry « Why Evolution Is True

Comon, have you read about the G-Protien coupled receptors? It screams design as well! The more science discovers the more it points to intelligence and a designer not mutaion/natural selection.

 

[adi2d]

Comon, have you read about the G-Protien coupled receptors? It screams design as well! The more science discovers the more it points to intelligence and a designer not mutaion/natural selection.

You keep making this claim. How does dna point to your designer? Just saying it doesn't make it so. What EVIDENCE do you have for your God of choice?

 

[McBell]

LOL! Yeah throw it back on me.

You claimed to have already presented some.
I merely want to know where.

I suspect you are merely talking out your backside, but I wanted you to have the chance to save what little credibility you have left.

 

[McBell]

Comon, have you read about the G-Protien coupled receptors? It screams design as well! The more science discovers the more it points to intelligence and a designer not mutaion/natural selection.

Are you ever going to support any of your claims?

 

[CG Didymus]

What a bizarre series of questions. Is the fact aspects of a plan are disagreed upon that no plan exists? Over 95% of all humans existed after Christ came, I am guessing over 99.9% existed after Moses. Are attempting to make a point concerning your opinion on the .1% that is remaining?...

The point is: What was God's "perfect" plan prior to Jesus and prior to Moses? Without using any of the "answers" in the NT, how would a Jew, prior to Jesus describe God's "perfect" plan? Prior to Moses, assuming Moses wrote the first five books, what did God's chosen people have? They didn't have a written book yet. How did they know what God's plan for them was? And, from the first five books, what was that plan?

There are methods for establishing the likely hood things are literal or allegorical. I have no idea why you think it worthwhile to take the most extreme and unlikely view but will adopt it anyway. Let's say Genesis creation stories are 100% allegory, what is that supposed to mean or prove. My faith is primarily based of the crucifixion and resurrection details recorded with a certainty that is easily assessed. I have no idea what your driving at.

Duh, if it's allegory, there is no literal six-day creation, no flood, but most of all no literal fall with an evil God-created spirit being tempting the first humans disguised as a walking talking snake, oh excuse me, serpent. Without a literal devil and a hell and a fall, what does a literal crucified God-in-the-flesh Messiah even mean? You need it all to be true, literally, don't you?

I believe there is a spiritual realm that contains spiritual beings who are evil. I have personal experience with them and know of many individuals and have read many documented cases of their activity... I take the existence of Satan specifically and what is said about him on faith.

God's Christian "perfect" plan does contain a devil/satan, but does Judaism? Since this thread is asking if God is evil, then yes, he is. He allows for a microsecond of eternity for an evil-being to exist that helps cause us to doubt and fall away from God. God puts a soul, I assume an unblemished soul, into a body that has an inherited sin nature and a limited brain function and limited amount of time to decide if God is real or not and whether they should follow him. That's messed up. It's a cruel game except for the few, the good, I mean the "forgiven," the chosen.

I believe that based of inference. It is not a specifically stated doctrine. I can get you the verses where this "unofficial doctrine" is derived but first I wanted to state what level of belief I have in it. I think it logically derived from the nature of God, verses that comment on aspects of it, the traditions that have existed for thousands of years going back to men who talked with God. I do not claim it is an easily demonstrated doctrine as it is never specifically revealed to my knowledge. Verses upon request.

Age of accountability is too weird. A child from parents of another religion or even from atheists would go to heaven? What about the stain of sin inherited from Adam? God overlooks it for children? Then why not an adult who never knew enough about God and Jesus to make an informed decision? Shouldn't God cut them some slack also? Anyway, thanks again for your time, looking forward to your response.

 

[Rapture Era]

You keep making this claim. How does dna point to your designer? Just saying it doesn't make it so. What EVIDENCE do you have for your God of choice?

Would you agree that evolution and creation are the two main players in this debate?

 

[Rapture Era]

You claimed to have already presented some.
I merely want to know where.

I suspect you are merely talking out your backside, but I wanted you to have the chance to save what little credibility you have left.

Thats why Im asking you or anyone else to give me your starting point on how life began as you see it or believe it and what is your strongest foundation that you so firmly stand? Im guessing all of your answers would be close. Can you do that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you agree that evolution and creation are the two main players in this debate?

Poor Lamarckism. Everyone forgets about Lamarckism.

To answer your question: no, they're not. And even if they were, it would still be intellectually dishonest to argue that creationism is some magic option that gets to be assumed true by default.

Heck, even if the options in front of us were only creationism and "I dunno", you would still have to defend creationism on its own merits.

 

[johnhanks]

Thats why Im asking you or anyone else to give me your starting point on how life began as you see it or believe it and what is your strongest foundation that you so firmly stand? Im guessing all of your answers would be close. Can you do that?

Already done, in post 1768 - which (like most answers to your questions) you have conveniently ignored. There's plenty to read here; perhaps when you're done (and don't forget this link) you'd like to offer a critique.

Let me anticipate your first response: "it's all hypothesis". So it is; but in my book "we don't know, but here are some ideas to try out" has a thick edge over "we don't know, so god must have done it".

 

[1robin]

The point is: What was God's "perfect" plan prior to Jesus and prior to Moses?

Faith. Can you state what specifically it is your trying to say. You seem to be setting up questions designed to get me to activate a trap. I do not see any problem here. If you state what your trying to demonstrate maybe I can reply more effectively.

Without using any of the "answers" in the NT, how would a Jew, prior to Jesus describe God's "perfect" plan?

Faith, including faith in a messiah and the rest of the provisions for sin God had incorporated into Hebrew Levitical practice.

Prior to Moses, assuming Moses wrote the first five books, what did God's chosen people have?

Have? Your questions a very ambiguous. They had feet, they had faith, they had hope. I have no idea how to answer this. Are you asking what revelation they had?

They didn't have a written book yet. How did they know what God's plan for them was? And, from the first five books, what was that plan?

The book that was produced came from oral traditions that went back to the beginning and the Holy Spirit. Both of which were available to those that preceded Moses. I think your attempting to show God hung all those after Adam and before Moses out to dry. One verse is enough to dispel that attempt. The Bible says that we are only responsible for that revelation we have had access to. At it's most minimal God said there is enough evidence in nature alone to have faith a benevolent God exists, so that they (we) are without excuse. Unless they had no access to nature they had all they needed.

Duh, if it's allegory, there is no literal six-day creation, no flood, but most of all no literal fall with an evil God-created spirit being tempting the first humans disguised as a walking talking snake, oh excuse me, serpent. Without a literal devil and a hell and a fall, what does a literal crucified God-in-the-flesh Messiah even mean? You need it all to be true, literally, don't you?

The ambiguity related to the events in Genesis have no parallel with the events of Christ's sacrifice. There is much disagreement about 6-literal days but very little about Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. As far as salvation goes it makes no difference what the meaning of verses in Genesis are, only what the very simplistic and well established meanings of the Gospel verses are. Again I do not see the value in what you are trying to show. Whether Adam, eve, the serpent, or the 6 days are literal or allegory you still need to have faith in the literal events concerning Christ. Not one essential doctrine is contained in genesis. Satan, heaven, Hell, sin, redemption, and how to lead a Christian life are contained in verses far less ambiguous than Genesis.

God's Christian "perfect" plan does contain a devil/satan, but does Judaism? Since this thread is asking if God is evil, then yes, he is. He allows for a microsecond of eternity for an evil-being to exist that helps cause us to doubt and fall away from God. God puts a soul, I assume an unblemished soul, into a body that has an inherited sin nature and a limited brain function and limited amount of time to decide if God is real or not and whether they should follow him. That's messed up. It's a cruel game except for the few, the good, I mean the "forgiven," the chosen.

Not only is claiming God is evil something derived from vast evidence to the contrary it is also impossible. To judge God you would have to examine what he did against a higher standard that does not exist. I think you misunderstand what is meant by God's being loving, all powerful, and benevolent. Not one of those dictates any action. They are all quality designations not mandates for specific actions. God would still be perfect and benevolent if he had wiped us all out a long time ago. People love the idea of Christ being the Lamb of God but seem to forget he is also the Lion of Judah. God is loving but God is also just. He hates and judges sin. The thing that separates what you call the "good" is simply admission of truth. All we have to do is admit the truth. We sin and fail. We rebel and despise that which is good and love and cherish that which is bad. If we had to overcome that through effort I could see your point. When he paid the entire cost of OUR failure I can't see any merit in what you claim. I will give a general outline of what the Bible teaches about sin and salvation.

1. God is perfect and will only dwell eternally with perfection. The standard is not being good it is being perfect.
2. Man through the exercise of his own freewill is not perfect. None of us are, have been, or ever will be. In fact we do not even want to be in most cases.
3. So man must be perfect yet can never attain it. If that is where this ended I would also conclude that God is unjust.
4. Fortunately God is as loving as he is just. he paid 100% of the debt we owe. The only requirement is we admit the truth and accept our free pardon.
5. If we use our freewill to sin and rebel causing harm for generations that we can't even see and refuse to acknowledge or love him we get exactly what we wanted. Eternity without him. How is getting exactly what we chose unjust. I do not believe anyone is tortured forever. There are many reasons to believe Hell is the destruction of the soul. God created our soul, we corrupted what we did not create and God destroys that which he granted. I do not see anything unjust about this.

For a race of beings that decide that killing human life in the womb is just and permissible, even though we did not create that life nor have even a fraction of the information needed to make that decision to turn around and call the being who created all lives and has all information necessary to make a just determination evil is its self proof we are morally insane.

Age of accountability is too weird. A child from parents of another religion or even from atheists would go to heaven?

I do not think what you arbitrarily term as too weird to be a rational standard by which to declare what is true. There are countless weird non-intuitive things that are fact.

What about the stain of sin inherited from Adam? God overlooks it for children?

While a child does exhibit behavior that is selfish and sinful he does not have the knowledge base by which to make informed decisions. We humans do very similar things in establishing culpability based on age. One of the most frustrating things about non-theists is their double standards. If we make decisions about guilt based on age why do some of us deny God that right?

Then why not an adult who never knew enough about God and Jesus to make an informed decision?

That is accounted for by the Bible. We are only responsible for the revelation we have received. That is not one of the subjects I am competent in but if you look up Dr. Craig's problem of the unevangelised you will find all the answers you wish.

Shouldn't God cut them some slack also? Anyway, thanks again for your time, looking forward to your response.

He does cut them some slack. I am happy to provide whatever information I may have. I would also suggest looking up the "problem of evil" in theological literature. Aquinas would be a good source.