Can God love? (Part 2)

The problem we have is that we can only think in our limited terms , we do not know of any process that covers the universe but if we did it would be just as simple as us explaining to a child how a toy was made etc

Depends on how much education you have, how bright you are and whether or not you are willing to learn things that are outside your comfort zone in the search for the truth. The universe and all that is in it is a complex place.

All the atoms that make up you were created in the stars. We are stardust, poly.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990625080416.htm

I( agree all the atoms were made because they can be taken apart,

PROBLEM
who madec them?

PROBLEM who madec them?.

Protons or anything else in nature do not have to made by a who ?

This is your cognitive bias obstructing your rationality, try meditating.

ommmmmmmmmmm........ommmmmmmmmmm LMAO.

What a fruitcake.

I

( agree all the atoms were made because they can be taken apart,

PROBLEM
who madec them?

Problem is not who but what? Stars created all the atoms in the universe. All the atoms that make up you were created in stars. This is a beautiful concept.

Problem.

Who made the stars?

Not who. What? Big Bang made the stars. If you ask me who made Big Bang, I can't answer that. But the evidence does not point to a who. Science has yet to discover what triggered BB. God is the answer you accept because you can't be bothered to look further or deeper into a plausible explanation. This worked fine for ancient civilisations but this is the 21st century and it is sad indictment of the education system in this country if people are still believing fairy tales over evidence-based science.

Any sane person must understand that if something is there, there must be a reason and a cause.

You cannot just say the Big Bang, but do not ask where this originated.

You can of course say that, just as you have done but it solves nothing and the problem is just as much a problem as previously.

Unless it can be established that something can come from nothing
then there must be a creator of some kind.

The problem is we can only think in the terms we are familiar with but there will be many possibilities that are far beyond our understanding.

The problem is we can only think in the terms we are familiar with but there will be many possibilities that are far beyond our understanding.

.

Correct, including causes outside our universe, you are the expert claiming something cannot come from nothing, sane people admit they do not know.

You cannot just say the Big Bang, but do not ask where this originated.

You do not really read people's posts do you? Not carefully. You make presumptions about pretty much everything. Of course, I ask the question how did BB originate. I just don't settle on God as the answer. We don't know the answer. You, on the other hand, settle on the 'easy, lazy' answer because you will not look further than the bible for your answers.

Wrong, wrong, I look at all the possibilities put forward and none can explain how the atom was created and that is the first consideration knowing that all things are made from atoms.

You said do not ask about where the Big Bang came from, the whole point is if the Big Bang is a fact then where did that which went Bang come from?.

We know from the atom bomb that the atom can be split, so it must have been put together.

Now if you consider that along with the whole of creation on earth and think it all came about by chance, not to mention the universe, then there are places that will take great care of you.

You said do not ask about where the Big Bang came from, the whole point is if the Big Bang is a fact then where did that which went Bang come from?.

Hundreds, even thousands, of years ago, we used to ask questions like:

Where does the rain come from? What causes it?
What are stars?
What keeps the sun shining?
What causes a solar eclipse?

And priests of all kinds of religions were willing to step in and answer those questions. The fanciful tales were endless. Rain came from a crying god. Stars are the souls of deceased heroes. The sun is the eye of god (or is a god itself). Eclipses are caused by a god eating the sun.

And people believed it.

That was until science answered those questions. Even Christians no longer believe stars are souls or that eclipses are caused by a god with the munchies.

Yet here we are in 2012, still asking questions about the universe.

What caused the Big Bang?
How did life originate?
What happened before the Big Bang?

And here we are in 2012 with priests still willing to step forward to answer those questions. And still the fanciful tales are endless. The Big Bang was caused by a god speaking the universe into existence. Life originated from a god that created a man from dirt and a woman from the man's rib. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing but a god.

A definite pattern is emerging here, don't you think? Science will answer those questions just as it has answered all the others; perhaps in a few generations (or even less), the idea of the Big Bang being caused by a loquacious god with magical powers will be as ridiculous in the future as stories of gods nibbling on the sun is today.

Creationists seem to lack the ability to see patterns in history for some reason. Either they don't want to see those patterns, or they aren't paying attention.

Wrong wrong, I look at all the possibilities put forward and none can explain how the atom was created and that is the first consideration knowing that all things are made from atoms.

mmm, if you don't understand biology then just maybe quantum mechanics is above your pay grade, try and imagine the possibility that every gap in your knowledge is not sufficient reason to insert your Bronze Age deity.

p.s.
Two wrongs do not a right make.........GET HELP.

Two wrongs prove that they are both wrong, I know. I know, you are unable to comprehend the obvious and in live dream land but even you must at some time learn to understand the most simple logic as opposed to supposition and speculation.

With your obvious {in your opinion only] superior knowledge, then perhaps you, by all the methods you state, explain how the atom was formed and then how matter was created.

Not giving others opinions but in plain English, anything I believe in I can explain in terms even you [with your obvious limited reasoning] can follow.

Just the easy steps from nothing to something will do with the evidence to support it.

I have a very distinct feeling you are beyond any help.

Two wrongs prove that they are both wrong, I know. I know, you are unable to comprehend the obvious and in live dream land but even you must at some time learn to understand the most simple logic as opposed to supposition and speculation.

Logic is based on evidence, you have none and I have plenty, back to school for you dear.

With your obvious {in your opinion only] superior knowledge, then perhaps you, by all the methods you state, explain how the atom was formed and then how matter was created.

I am not the one who is claiming to know how the universe came about dear, am I ? I am the one claiming I do not know, is debate too highbrow for you sweetie ?

What has this got to do with humans evolving from a common ancestor with primates, science has provided you with evolution as an explanation but for some unscientific reason you reject it.

Not giving others opinions but in plain English, anything I believe in I can explain in terms even you [with your obvious limited reasoning] can follow.

Science does not deal in opinions my dear, and the chances of you understanding Quantum Physics is zero, is that simple enough for you ?

Everything you believe is simple because you are simple, what can I say.

Just the easy steps from nothing to something will do with the evidence to support it.

Who says something came from nothing, you ? Try defending your own position instead of inventing mine.

I have a very distinct feeling you are beyond any help. .

You do not know what day of the week it is, and you are getting mangled in a debate without much effort on my part.

Not giving others opinions but in plain English, anything I believe in I can explain in terms even you [with your obvious limited reasoning] can follow.

Of course you can, polyglide, because religion is simplistic. It was designed to be understood even by desert nomads without a speck of formal education, much less any understanding of science. According to your beliefs, the complex question of the origins of the universe can be summed up in one short sentence in Genesis 1:1.

And you want to pit that simplicity against the complex rigors of science? You expect non-scientists to give a long speech on how the universe came to be just so you can say, "nuh uh!" without any real debunking of the actual science?

That's not only unfair, it's also disingenuous.

Then just give me the answer in simple terms.

I feel being simple is a far better option than being stupid, devoid of the power of reasoning and childlike, I simply understand when you stumble in the dark.

Shirina, if someone thinks they have an answer, then they can give it in plain terms, or it is conjecture and leaves no place for others to either agree or deny.

Scientists have been wrong on numerous accasions and on even more occasions have had to change their minds.

I know they are seeking the answers to some of the most complex quesions but thoery is far, far, removed from fact and scientists deal mainly in theory.

I feel being simple is a far better option than being stupid,

A simpleton is stupid, you make the village idiot look intelligent.

if someone thinks they have an answer, then they can give it in plain terms, or it is conjecture and leaves no place for others to either agree or deny.

All life evolved from a common ancestor, cannot get any plainer than that, and we have evidence coming out of our eyeballs to prove it.

Scientists have been wrong on numerous accasions and on even more occasions have had to change their minds.

For creationism to be true, half of science has to be wrong, this is the size of the error you are proposing, go and see another shrink this one is not working.

What is wrong with you people ?

I know they are seeking the answers to some of the most complex quesions but thoery is far, far, removed from fact and scientists deal mainly in theory.

Since the difference between a theory in the general sense of the word and a scientific theory has been explained to you countless times, I consider this an obvious trolling tactic, you are starting to make too many errors, you are struggling to maintain your persona.

polyglide................are you really this crazy, I am kinda hoping you are a wind up troll.

I would be realy, realy, concerned if I thouhgt you capable of any kind of rationalisation but to be called anything by you is like a demented camel trying to sound reasonable and sane.

Before attempting to explain the meaning of anything to anyone else please do a little investigating in the Dandy, Beano and the Micky Mouse books they will give you a lot to think about, as it is apparent anything else is completely lost on you.

* Epic fail *

You come back anytime, y'hear.

Does God have any moral responsibility to his children?

Human parents have a moral responsibility to protect and try to raise their children to be what we think of as good citizens. Our laws, to some extent, make parents morally and legally responsible for the actions of their children.

God, our heavenly parent, is said to create our natures. Natures can only be followed. They cannot be changed, which I think is why God is said to hate some of us even in the womb; even before we can either do good or evil. IOW, he intentionally creates those he knows will be evil. I know some will blame man’s sins on his free will and thus shift the burden of responsibility for our sins away from God but that urge to sin is controlled by the nature and inclinations that God himself puts in us. We do have free will but that does not explain why our will, will go to evil instead of good. That desire is part of the nature that God puts in us as the story of Esau shows. In a way, Esau had no choice.

If God were just one of many Gods in a God society, would that society demand that he take responsibility in the same way human society has decided that a human child’s parent must take responsibilities?

Yes we would.

The fact that God punishes or rewards us seems to indicate that he at least thinks that he has some moral responsibility; otherwise he could not morally retain the right to punish or reward. At present we have no clear picture of what heaven and hell are like. God does not provide full disclosure even though our soul is at stake. That is not justice.

Should God’s responsibility include full disclose of what our true reward and punishment is?

God did not seem to think so in Eden, where Adam and Eve knew of only the one punishment before the act of disobedience. They soon found that the one punishment became many. It was a complete surprise for them. To me, that was completely immoral of God. That is like God lying to Adam and Eve by omission.

Does God have a responsibility for the souls he creates?

And since he could insure that all come to a good end in heaven, is making sure we get there also part of his responsibility since he creates the natures we cannot help but follow?

Any good human parent with God-like powers would insure the best end for his child if he had the power of a God. I know you and I would as part of our inclination to love and protect our children.

If God does not, does that make man more responsible than God in terms of accepting responsibility for our children?

Regards
DL

Who are God's children? Spiritual birth makes someone a child of God.
John 1:12-13, NIV. But do they have to be Christian?

oftenwrong wrote:Who are God's children? Spiritual birth makes someone a child of God.
John 1:12-13, NIV. But do they have to be Christian?

I guess that God's children will be those who believe him to be their creator and father, be they Christian or not.

Did you have an opinion on the moral question from the O P or is it too hard for you to analyse the myth as a myth?

Regards
DL

DL,

I rarely pontificate over the mood swings of imaginary beings, its hard enough to find any evidence of its existence never mind any evidence of its temperament.

Tosh wrote:DL,

I rarely pontificate over the mood swings of imaginary beings, its hard enough to find any evidence of its existence never mind any evidence of its temperament.

Indeed. There is no evidence in the true sense of the word.

There is still much that can be gleaned of God's temperament even if the myth is recognized for the myth that it is.

Regards
DL

There is still much that can be gleaned of God's temperament even if the myth is recognized for the myth that it is.

God is unknowable and unfathomable, not conducive to gleaning.

Tosh wrote:

There is still much that can be gleaned of God's temperament even if the myth is recognized for the myth that it is.

God is unknowable and unfathomable, not conducive to gleaning.

I agree yet much has been written by those who can somehow fathom the unfathomable.

I wanted to discuss parental morals and hope someone who believes in the immoral bible God will engage.

Regards
DL

I am a child of God - I don't subscribe to any religious belief, but I have confidence that God, if he exists, will take care of me as a parent will take care of his children.
I am unique and irreplaceable - if I die, the world will be a poorer place.
You are all children of God, same as me, whatever any of you belive.

Greatest I am wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:Who are God's children? Spiritual birth makes someone a child of God.
John 1:12-13, NIV. But do they have to be Christian?

I guess that God's children will be those who believe him to be their creator and father, be they Christian or not.

Did you have an opinion on the moral question from the O P or is it too hard for you to analyse the myth as a myth?

Regards
DL

I would not presume to have an opinion on your guesswork, GIa.

but I have confidence that God, if he exists, will take care of me as a parent will take care of his children.

There is a rather obvious bias in this either or scenario, if a god exists he must be or has to be good or there is no point in wanting him to exist.

Add option 3, God exists but you die anyway and option 4, God exists but he will not take care of you, your spirit is on its own.

Now these two are lesser reasons to believe " if God exists ".

Personally, I prefer to consider whether I exist, and, if so, what might be my purpose.
If a thing is invisible, ineffable and unknowable, why would I waste time trying to 'prove' its existence?
Whether or not i have an immortal spirit is not something I am equipped to 'know' so I will just confine my thoughts to those things I can have knowledge of and some control over.
Many thousands of angels may in fact dance on the head of every pin - as I can't see them, to me the pin is just a device for fastening things together.

Maybe a more fruitful notion to ponder might be, do we as individuals have any moral duty to do good to each other? and if so, how might that be achieved?

boatlady wrote:Personally, I prefer to consider whether I exist, and, if so, what might be my purpose.
If a thing is invisible, ineffable and unknowable, why would I waste time trying to 'prove' its existence?
Whether or not i have an immortal spirit is not something I am equipped to 'know' so I will just confine my thoughts to those things I can have knowledge of and some control over.
Many thousands of angels may in fact dance on the head of every pin - as I can't see them, to me the pin is just a device for fastening things together.

Maybe a more fruitful notion to ponder might be, do we as individuals have any moral duty to do good to each other? and if so, how might that be achieved?

Is that a large pin that holds the world together, or a small pin that holds two pieces of cloth? I only ask because if it holds the world together and they pull the pin the consequences are greater than the other option.

Greatest I am wrote:

Tosh wrote:DL,

I rarely pontificate over the mood swings of imaginary beings, its hard enough to find any evidence of its existence never mind any evidence of its temperament.

Indeed. There is no evidence in the true sense of the word.

There is still much that can be gleaned of God's temperament even if the myth is recognized for the myth that it is.

Regards
DL

I fail to see how anything, let alone meaningful, can be gleaned from a myth, only about the mind of the one/s who started the myth perhaps.

boatlady wrote:I am a child of God - I don't subscribe to any religious belief, but I have confidence that God, if he exists, will take care of me as a parent will take care of his children.
I am unique and irreplaceable - if I die, the world will be a poorer place.
You are all children of God, same as me, whatever any of you belive.

How Gnostic of you. I like it.

You might like this guy.
He basically thinks our way.



Regards
DL

trevorw2539 wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Tosh wrote:DL,

I rarely pontificate over the mood swings of imaginary beings, its hard enough to find any evidence of its existence never mind any evidence of its temperament.

Indeed. There is no evidence in the true sense of the word.

There is still much that can be gleaned of God's temperament even if the myth is recognized for the myth that it is.

Regards
DL

I fail to see how anything, let alone meaningful, can be gleaned from a myth, only about the mind of the one/s who started the myth perhaps.

That as well for sure but have you not noticed how we use nursery rhymes,---- myths ----, to teach children morals.

The bible is just a book of fairy tales / myths for adults.

Those of intelligence will recognize that fact.

Those without will be lost to belief in fantasy, miracles and magic.

Regards
DL

Personally, I prefer to consider whether I exist, and, if so, what might be my purpose.

To deny existence requires consciousness, and to deny consciousness requires consciousness, its safe to say you exist.

Personally I think you should consider why existence must have a purpose beyond that which you attribute to it.

Maybe a more fruitful notion to ponder might be, do we as individuals have any moral duty to do good to each other? and if so, how might that be achieved?

We have a duty to protect ourselves and our family from environments that may harm us, as creators of our environment, creating an environment of less harm is a reasonable ambition, morality tends to be focused around harm. Creating an environment where the most harm is inflicted on the most number of people is counter intuitive because it is in effect self defeating, morality is the antithesis of this notion.
It can be achieved by removing the causes of harm and by persuading humans to adopt universal rights and responsibilities, a reasonable mind understands the benefits of creating an environment free from harm.