162 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

Quite frankly I find this a very stupid question.

Then you're a stupid person?

I mean, what the hell is so damn stupid about merely asking 'why'? Don't you ever wonder?

You might as well ask a couple why they make a baby or an artist paints a picture or a poet writes a beautiful piece of literature. Obviously he can't be a creator if he doesn't create anything.

I CAN ask a couple why they make a baby or why an artist paints a picture, and they will often give actual reasons. God won't, as far as I know. Apart from the one already given in the topic, which doesn't actually answer my question. I don't want to know his REASONS. I want to know WHY he has his reasons.

Why CAN God create the world?

Here's an even bigger question. Why does God exist? Not that he does. But where did he come from? What purpose does he serve?

I think I've already heard the answer to those ones, the convientent 'he is everything' answers. Bah. Christianity has such boring mythos.

And Lena, yes, I'm aware the Bible can be found online, but it has so many different translations and edits that I'd be concerned about what version I'd be reading. On the internet it's especially succeptable to being abridged. Besides, I'm more interested in people's interpretations than the actual words.

I don't really know what answer Christianity can give you, or any religion for that matter. For me, Christianity explains most of of those Why's pretty well. The rest I don't really care about personally but they're honest questions all the same. I just don't think there's any answer to them that will satisfy you. All I can say why does it matter so much? Especially you, an athiest who already decided God can't possibly exist, why would it matter why he created the world or why he he exists? If you don't even have an open mind to the possibility that God could possibly exist, any answer I give you, you're just going to reject outright as simply religious mumbo-jumbo so why should I bother?

Edited by SOAP, 03 July 2007 - 08:40 AM.

[Person]

The deuterocanonical books are outside of the 66 books decided by the Council of Nicea, which used books almost universally used by the early church. The others are used by Catholics because of their relevance to church tradition, but Protestants dispute them because of their late dates.

That website probbly wasn't discriminating against Catholics. It was merely offering the "standard" Bible first, and then you had to look up the additional books.

[TheAvengerLever]

The books of the Bible weren't decided upon at the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea was a means to combat the Arian controversy.

[Doopliss]

Of course religion can't provide a rational foundation of its beliefs. Religion is completely based on faith and it can't exist if people don't have faith on it. When you believe in religion, you must accept that god has the truth and that you can't understand his truth, so therefore you must trust in god, even if his truth doesn't seem rationally correct to humans.

Personally, I don't have faith on anything, not even on reason. That's why I don't believe in anything. If you want a rational explanation of the universe, you should study philosophy, not religion. However, you should be aware that philosophy is limitated by human intelligence and reason.

[Reflectionist]

Of course religion can't provide a rational foundation of its beliefs. Religion is completely based on faith and it can't exist if people don't have faith on it. When you believe in religion, you must accept that god has the truth and that you can't understand his truth, so therefore you must trust in god, even if his truth doesn't seem rationally correct to humans.

Personally, I don't have faith on anything, not even on reason. That's why I don't believe in anything. If you want a rational explanation of the universe, you should study philosophy, not religion. However, you should be aware that philosophy is limitated by human intelligence and reason.

I thought you were Mormon or something....
O_o

[MikePetersSucks]

No, Doopliss is an atheist.

[arunma]

Atheists: no more blasphemy.

If you're an atheist, blasphemy doesn't really exist, though.

arunma, personally, as far as I can tell, MPS said that the answer which was given makes God look like a conceited etc. etc. That's not exactly the same as saying he is, although I can understand how somebody can get insulted with such a statement. And I agree with MPS, it does make God sound like a conceited ass, and seeing as he isn't, or at least many Christians believe he isn't, that particular answer could not be right.

Mike, read the forum rules. It says "It is forbidden to blatantly attack any form of religious, political, social, or sexual orientation." It doesn't matter whether you think a comment constitutes blasphemy in someone else's eyes or not, it's still against the rules, and posts of this nature won't be given any leeway simply because you don't believe that the deity you're insulting exists.

And to both Mike and Wolf: I'm also going to put a stop to debates on whether or not moderator actions are fair. Any more posts on this topic are going to be deleted. I don't mean to sound like a power-hungry tyrant, but in the past, these discussions have spiraled threads out of control and off topic.

[Person]

The Council of Nicea was to combat the Arian controversy, but it also had the side effect of putting a "seal of approval" on the books everybody was using anyway.

[TheAvengerLever]

No, Nicaea didn't have anything to do with the canon of the New Testament, no matter how hard Dan Brown wants you to believe it. The "seal of approval" you're talking about was stamped at the Council of Carthage.

[MikePetersSucks]

Mike, read the forum rules. It says "It is forbidden to blatantly attack any form of religious, political, social, or sexual orientation." It doesn't matter whether you think a comment constitutes blasphemy in someone else's eyes or not, it's still against the rules, and posts of this nature won't be given any leeway simply because you don't believe that the deity you're insulting exists.

And to both Mike and Wolf: I'm also going to put a stop to debates on whether or not moderator actions are fair. Any more posts on this topic are going to be deleted. I don't mean to sound like a power-hungry tyrant, but in the past, these discussions have spiraled threads out of control and off topic.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to offend. I was trying to say, with that comment, was that it makes God out to be something we all know he isn't, and is thus an insatisfactory answer.

[Person]

I wasn't using Dan Brown, because his books are full of crap. I suppose I confused the Council of Nicea with the Council of Carthage. My mistake.

[TheAvengerLever]

It's something that happens to everyone.

[SOAP]

Mike, read the forum rules. It says "It is forbidden to blatantly attack any form of religious, political, social, or sexual orientation." It doesn't matter whether you think a comment constitutes blasphemy in someone else's eyes or not, it's still against the rules, and posts of this nature won't be given any leeway simply because you don't believe that the deity you're insulting exists.

And to both Mike and Wolf: I'm also going to put a stop to debates on whether or not moderator actions are fair. Any more posts on this topic are going to be deleted. I don't mean to sound like a power-hungry tyrant, but in the past, these discussions have spiraled threads out of control and off topic.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to offend. I was trying to say, with that comment, was that it makes God out to be something we all know he isn't, and is thus an insatisfactory answer.

Understood. But that's not the only way to look at such a comment. Earlier someone asked if God careted us out of loneliness. Maybe that's the reason. It might sound silly but think about it. If you were an omnipotent being who create an entire universe out of nothing, wouldn't you want to create other beings outside of yourself that can think and act independently from you? And wouldn't you want to be known to such beings and be loved by them? Especially if such love could only be given freely to you and not forced? It's not self-centered to want to be loved by your own creation. It's the same as mother wanted to be loved by her children. [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of times, the child will rebel and want nothing to do with his or her mother just like Mankind rebels against God. But it's not wrong for a mother to want her child to love her and in fact it would be wrong not to love your mom because you owe you very life to her. It's the same with God or at least that's how interpret God. All throughout the Bible, God is depicted as a parental figure more than anything else. If you don't believe in God, that's fine. You have your beliefs and I have mines. It just bugs me when atheists act like God doesn't even deserve love or any credit for our lives whatsoever should he exist. Saying stuff like that is like telling people their moms are absolutely worthless. That's why it strikes such a nerve when you go off saying God is a conceited, self-centered asshole even if you didn't mean it that way.

[MikePetersSucks]

Well, it's not so much that I don't believe in God, just not the Abrahamic version(s) of him. And while yes, I can understand him as a parent, it still doesn't answer why he created the universe. Doesn't loneliness imply imperfection?

[vodkamaru]

If you were an omnipotent being who create an entire universe out of nothing, wouldn't you want to create other beings outside of yourself that can think and act independently from you?

...except the omnipotent being already knows every aspect of its creation. Nothing could ever be new or interesting to it. Your life story would be known to it before you were even born.

But it's not wrong for a mother to want her child to love her and in fact it would be wrong not to love your mom because you owe you very life to her. It's the same with God

What if she spent the kid's whole childhood mentally and physically abusing him? No one is going to say he has to love her, then. She doesn't get special treatment just because she got laid at some point. I don't think the importance of a mother lies in giving birth. It's the first years after that she's needed the most. Right now god seems like a deadbeat dad.

Edited by vodkamaru, 04 July 2007 - 12:10 PM.

[SOAP]

Well, it's not so much that I don't believe in God, just not the Abrahamic version(s) of him.

I can understand that. Actually my personal beliefs about God are more towards the Ba'hai Faith with just a dash of Discordian for flavor. I just call myself Christian because as of right now, it's the only religious circle I can be apart of.

And while yes, I can understand him as a parent, it still doesn't answer why he created the universe. Doesn't loneliness imply imperfection?

In that case I don't what will answer your question then because wanting to be loved be loved by us has always been enough for me. Why does the answer need to be anymore complicated than that?

Loneliness doesn't really imply weakness though it does imply a bit of lack of self-sufficiency. Perhaps it would have been better if I had said he doesn't NEED to create us. Just like a couple doesn't need to have children. It's just nice to have something you created in your own image and it's also nicer said creation willfully chooses to love you back.

[SOAP]

If you were an omnipotent being who create an entire universe out of nothing, wouldn't you want to create other beings outside of yourself that can think and act independently from you?

...except the omnipotent being already knows every aspect of its creation. Nothing could ever be new or interesting to it. Your life story would be known to it before you were even born.

But it's not wrong for a mother to want her child to love her and in fact it would be wrong not to love your mom because you owe you very life to her. It's the same with God

What if she spent the kid's whole childhood mentally and physically abusing him? No one is going to say he has to love her, then.

Still that child would owe their life to her. That doesn't excuse her behavior and that child would need to be taken to a better home but to say the mother is completely worthless after bringing that child into the world is something else. If the mother is worthless so is the child.

Also, there are people that have been a bused by their parenst and have every legal right to want to remove themselves from them but still don't outright hate their parents. My mom once tried to kill me a few years back because I accused her of loving my stepdad more than me and my sister. I never once hated her, even when she was strangling me to death. I didn't raise a hand to her to save my own life. I could never hate my mom and don't understand how anyone could or how any one would advocate such a thing.

[vodkamaru]

Loneliness doesn't really imply weakness though it does imply a bit of lack of self-sufficiency.

Doesn't omnipotence imply a lack of nothing?

[SOAP]

Loneliness doesn't really imply weakness though it does imply a bit of lack of self-sufficiency.

Doesn't omnipotence imply a lack of nothing?

I don't know about that. The Greek Gods were considered omnipotent and the lacked [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of things, mainly self-control. Wanting company isn't that much of big deal and in fact makes God more relateable.

[vodkamaru]

Loneliness doesn't really imply weakness though it does imply a bit of lack of self-sufficiency.

Doesn't omnipotence imply a lack of nothing?

I don't know about that. The Greek Gods were considered omnipotent and the lacked [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of things, mainly self-control. Wanting company isn't that much of big deal and in fact makes God more relateable.

The Greek Gods were invented by the Greeks. They're just stories and the gods were characters. I'm not concerned with folklore. Real omnipotence implies unlimited power and knowledge.

Edited by vodkamaru, 04 July 2007 - 12:31 PM.

[SOAP]

Loneliness doesn't really imply weakness though it does imply a bit of lack of self-sufficiency.

Doesn't omnipotence imply a lack of nothing?

I don't know about that. The Greek Gods were considered omnipotent and the lacked [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of things, mainly self-control. Wanting company isn't that much of big deal and in fact makes God more relateable.

The Greek Gods were invented by the Greeks. They're just stories and the gods were characters. I'm not concerned with folklore.

I'm saying, it depends on what you mean by omnipotent. Literally, it just means all-powerful. The Greek Gods were thought to be all powerful most certianly but taht doesn't mean they didn't lack anything. Omnipotent doesn't always mean lacking in nothing, just not lacking in power.

[vodkamaru]

...just not lacking in power.

But it's power over everything.

The Greek Gods were thought to be all powerful most certainly but that doesn't mean they didn't lack anything.

The Greek Gods lack things certainly, one of them being existence. Bringing them up doesn't help explain anything. They're stories taught to teach a lesson and happen to include stories about something Greeks called gods. I'm talking about the definition of omnipotent as it is in the dictionary as it is used today not the Greek roots of the word. I get...

having absolute power over all.

In this sense the Greek Gods weren't omnipotent. If you have power over all then that includes the things you lack. An omnipotent being would be entirely self sufficient.

Edited by vodkamaru, 04 July 2007 - 12:46 PM.

[SOAP]

...just not lacking in power.

But it's power over everything.

Sure if you want to go down that route but then you run into hole figuring if God can make a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

[vodkamaru]

Sure if you want to go down that route but then you run into hole figuring if God can make a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

...but thats stupid. I'd be more curious to know if god's omnipotence would extend beyond his existence. If god killed himself would he know what happens afterward?

Edited by vodkamaru, 04 July 2007 - 12:57 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

If God killed himself, we'd be gone soon afterword.

[SOAP]

Sure if you want to go down that route but then you run into hole figuring if God can make a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

...but thats stupid. I'd be more curious to know if god's omnipotence would extend beyond his existence. If god killed himself would he know what happens afterward?

................................................


I fail to see how that's any less stupid. At least mine was to prove a point even if I was intentionally being cheesy about it.

[vodkamaru]

Sure if you want to go down that route but then you run into hole figuring if God can make a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

...but thats stupid. I'd be more curious to know if god's omnipotence would extend beyond his existence. If god killed himself would he know what happens afterward?

................................................


I fail to see how that's any less stupid. At least mine was to prove a point even if I was intentionally being cheesy about it.

When you ask, "Can god make a ___________ so __________ that not even he can __________ it?" the answer is always no whereas I'm asking a question about omnipotence.

[SOAP]

Sure if you want to go down that route but then you run into hole figuring if God can make a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

...but thats stupid. I'd be more curious to know if god's omnipotence would extend beyond his existence. If god killed himself would he know what happens afterward?

................................................


I fail to see how that's any less stupid. At least mine was to prove a point even if I was intentionally being cheesy about it.

When you ask, "Can god make a ___________ so __________ that not even he can __________ it?" the answer is always no whereas I'm asking a question about omnipotence.

First you'd have to ask if God could actually kill himself in the first place, which in itself would contradict omnipotence as you defined it because he can't die if he's omnipotent. There answer to that is no anyways because God is immortal and can't be killed, even by himself. Therefore asking if he would what happened afterwards is a stupid question because it would never happen.

[TheAvengerLever]

Besides, Vodkamaru, God is Life.

[vodkamaru]

Sure if you want to go down that route but then you run into hole figuring if God can make a burrito so hot he can't eat it.

...but thats stupid. I'd be more curious to know if god's omnipotence would extend beyond his existence. If god killed himself would he know what happens afterward?

................................................


I fail to see how that's any less stupid. At least mine was to prove a point even if I was intentionally being cheesy about it.

When you ask, "Can god make a ___________ so __________ that not even he can __________ it?" the answer is always no whereas I'm asking a question about omnipotence.

First you'd have to ask if God could actually kill himself in the first place, which in itself would contradict omnipotence as you defined it because he can't die if he's omnipotent.

No it doesn't. He could have full control over his own existence just like everything else's existence. You might not "kill" him, but he could will himself to cease to exist.

Edited by vodkamaru, 04 July 2007 - 03:34 PM.