You contradict yourself in less than 20 words. "God did need to create" "He wanted"
Need I say more?
Need I say more?
god is perfection?????????
- Thread starter fahrenheit 451
- Start date
there is no such assumption, it is not a question of whether it created or not, the fact is if something is perfect it does not need anything added, it is flawless.
so therefore if it created it is flawed, if it needed anything, it is flawed, not perfect.
so therefore if it created it is flawed, if it needed anything, it is flawed, not perfect.
fahrenheit 451 said:
beyondtimeandspace said:
Want derives from a need to share, to give. Those who store things up, store them up for others do they not? Inheritance for example.
A father desires the best for his children. His son's who will inherit all that is their fathers. The father's motive for His son's in every action is love. Love gives unconditionally because it is it's nature to do so. Love needs to love therefore Love said "Let there be". Love speaks in Faith and expects (Hope) it to come to fruition. It believes all things.
peace
c20
mustafhakofi, you missed the point. The assumption is that to create means there is a need. However, just because God created, doesn't NECESSARILY mean He needed to. Of course there is no need in the infinite, that's entirely obvious. Hence, if God created, He didn't create out of need.
c20H25N3o: I would conject that God did need to create, else he wouldn't have done it. He wanted witnesses to the power of The Word of God which was God and was with God.
*************
M*W: Like you said, it is your conjecture, and you did not provide evidence from unbiased literature.
*************
c20: This is why God said "Let us make living beings like us, in Our image". God is invisible, but He has an image of Himself and can create from nothing by breathing the Word of God. So He made us to be like Him, in His image that we may know The Living Word. Jesus was The Word made flesh.
*************
M*W: You're quoting Moses here. Moses' god was the sun. Moses' thought of himself as the 'word of god made flesh.' The sun spoke to Moses (in Egyptian, no less), and the word of god was the word Moses' thought he heard the sun speak to him (in Egyptian).
You are preaching again without documentation. You don't have the background to discuss the ancient religion of Moses. You are both blind and gullible. If you want the members of sciforums to comprehend your message, then you will go get yourself educated in ancient history. We're all tired of your preaching. It serves no purpose.
*************
M*W: Like you said, it is your conjecture, and you did not provide evidence from unbiased literature.
*************
c20: This is why God said "Let us make living beings like us, in Our image". God is invisible, but He has an image of Himself and can create from nothing by breathing the Word of God. So He made us to be like Him, in His image that we may know The Living Word. Jesus was The Word made flesh.
*************
M*W: You're quoting Moses here. Moses' god was the sun. Moses' thought of himself as the 'word of god made flesh.' The sun spoke to Moses (in Egyptian, no less), and the word of god was the word Moses' thought he heard the sun speak to him (in Egyptian).
You are preaching again without documentation. You don't have the background to discuss the ancient religion of Moses. You are both blind and gullible. If you want the members of sciforums to comprehend your message, then you will go get yourself educated in ancient history. We're all tired of your preaching. It serves no purpose.
c20H25N3o: M*W You know full well that the only proof I have of God's existence is the seed. Surely the seed is evidence enough for you?
*************
M*W: The evidence you speak of is merely a concept in your own mind. You should be able to identify and describe the 'seed' using scientifically acquired evidence to prove God exists. If you cannot do this, then your concept of God is simply your delusion and no true god exists. We await your scientific proof.
*************
M*W: The evidence you speak of is merely a concept in your own mind. You should be able to identify and describe the 'seed' using scientifically acquired evidence to prove God exists. If you cannot do this, then your concept of God is simply your delusion and no true god exists. We await your scientific proof.
Medicine Woman said:
Ok. A seed cannot exist without the fruit that contains it since the seed is developed inside of the fruit, which in turn must be attached to the tree so that it can receive nutrients through the earth in which that tree is rooted.
If a seed cannot exist without a tree and a tree cannot exist without a seed, I would suggest the burden of proof is upon the scientist to tell us which came first and how. If you cannot then God made it is the only answer using basic childlike logic. As you can see, the burden of proof is not on the believer but rather the unbeliever.
Thanks
c20
It would undoubtedly be impossible for you to grasp given that your mind thinks everything just *popped* into existence, exactly as you see it right now. I will certainly try and find you some sites that will explain things for you in very simple terms. From there you can hopefully move onto a greater understanding.
c20H25N3o: Ok. A seed cannot exist without the fruit that contains it since the seed is developed inside of the fruit, which in turn must be attached to the tree so that it can receive nutrients through the earth in which that tree is rooted. If a seed cannot exist without a tree and a tree cannot exist without a seed, I would suggest the burden of proof is upon the scientist to tell us which came first and how. If you cannot then God made it is the only answer using basic childlike logic. As you can see, the burden of proof is not on the believer but rather the unbeliever.
*************
M*W: You are such a liar and deceiver! I did not ask you to explain botanical evolution to us. I asked you to provide evidence of the existence of the seed of God, but you couldn't do it. (Are we surprised? No). You claim to be an instrument of God, yet you cannot explain "the seed of God." The burden of proof is on you. You're the one who makes up all these fantastic religious delusions, but you cannot prove squat. The burden of proof is on the one who claims the existence of God. It's called "Ad Ignorantiam" -- the appeal to ignorance. The burden of proof is fallacious when it is placed on the wrong side. The burden of proof occurs when there is a lack of evidence to prove God exists (your argument), therefore, you must provide this court beyond the shadow of a doubt that you can prove a believable burden that God, in fact, exists. Heretofore, you have not provided this forum substantial compelling evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof would reside with the opposition to prove you wrong. This reasoning follows the following form:
c20 claims God exists but cannot provide the evidence for God or christianity, so the burden of proof rests on the rest of the members to supply the burden of proof that God does not exist and neither does christianity.
The atheists on the forum claim that God doesn't exist and belief in God is false, because C20 cannot provide proof of God's existence.
The atheists on the forum are obligated to provide evidence that no God exists. c20 on the other hand does not bear the burden of proof and is assumed to be true unless c20 can prove otherwise.
To determine whether c20 or the atheists on the forum can present clear and compelling evidence of the burden of proof may require significant debate. c20, however, has failed to provide any evidence for the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt, so, the atheists prevail as they can provide beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence that there is no God.
In American law, a person is believed to be innocent until proven guilty. Since c20 cannot provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so the burden of proof is up to the atheists. In debate, the burden of proof is placed on c20 because c20 wants to prove the existence of God, but c20 cannot prove that God exists, so he is to be considered a liar and a fraud unless he can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise. In this case, c20 would not prevail, and his preaching in the affirmative for God existing would be proven to be false. Because c20 fails to debate the issues of God and christianity, he has resorted to preaching on the religion forum which is an absolute no-no. The judge in the case of c20 vs. the atheists is James R.
*************
M*W: You are such a liar and deceiver! I did not ask you to explain botanical evolution to us. I asked you to provide evidence of the existence of the seed of God, but you couldn't do it. (Are we surprised? No). You claim to be an instrument of God, yet you cannot explain "the seed of God." The burden of proof is on you. You're the one who makes up all these fantastic religious delusions, but you cannot prove squat. The burden of proof is on the one who claims the existence of God. It's called "Ad Ignorantiam" -- the appeal to ignorance. The burden of proof is fallacious when it is placed on the wrong side. The burden of proof occurs when there is a lack of evidence to prove God exists (your argument), therefore, you must provide this court beyond the shadow of a doubt that you can prove a believable burden that God, in fact, exists. Heretofore, you have not provided this forum substantial compelling evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof would reside with the opposition to prove you wrong. This reasoning follows the following form:
c20 claims God exists but cannot provide the evidence for God or christianity, so the burden of proof rests on the rest of the members to supply the burden of proof that God does not exist and neither does christianity.
The atheists on the forum claim that God doesn't exist and belief in God is false, because C20 cannot provide proof of God's existence.
The atheists on the forum are obligated to provide evidence that no God exists. c20 on the other hand does not bear the burden of proof and is assumed to be true unless c20 can prove otherwise.
To determine whether c20 or the atheists on the forum can present clear and compelling evidence of the burden of proof may require significant debate. c20, however, has failed to provide any evidence for the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt, so, the atheists prevail as they can provide beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence that there is no God.
In American law, a person is believed to be innocent until proven guilty. Since c20 cannot provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so the burden of proof is up to the atheists. In debate, the burden of proof is placed on c20 because c20 wants to prove the existence of God, but c20 cannot prove that God exists, so he is to be considered a liar and a fraud unless he can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise. In this case, c20 would not prevail, and his preaching in the affirmative for God existing would be proven to be false. Because c20 fails to debate the issues of God and christianity, he has resorted to preaching on the religion forum which is an absolute no-no. The judge in the case of c20 vs. the atheists is James R.
Ok. Prove that last premise. Why creating is an imperfection?fahrenheit 451 said:
Does God need us? I don't think so...!
And why does He need to create? As long as I know He just wanted to create. There was no need.
Not quite. The concept of perfection requires that He is neutral and impartial, but NOT necessarily indifferent.
Organize your premises and conclusion and fully explain them before you claim such a thing.
And just a hint.... don't consider God in human terms....
You speak the Word but you don't understand it. As a result, peoplen don't understand you either.c20H25N3o said:
God is amorphous. We are too. You confuse spirit with body. Our spirits were created in his image, not our bodies. Our "image" is our spirits, not our bodies.
I'm not even going to the Word of God....
And you are too. You just said it in the above quote...
EDIT: actually... I should ponder more about the above...
Ok, to explain this as simply as possible...
It is along the same lines as the often thought of "chicken and the egg".
Everything is an evolutionary process. A tree doesn't just pop into existence, fully grown, and with seeds on it's branches. As things evolve, they change slightly. Over a long period of time those changes add up. You now see a tree with seeds that has been changing for millions of years. It didn't start as a seed or a tree, but has continually evolved whereby right now a tree has seeds, and seeds make a tree.
Was that simple enough?
It is along the same lines as the often thought of "chicken and the egg".
Everything is an evolutionary process. A tree doesn't just pop into existence, fully grown, and with seeds on it's branches. As things evolve, they change slightly. Over a long period of time those changes add up. You now see a tree with seeds that has been changing for millions of years. It didn't start as a seed or a tree, but has continually evolved whereby right now a tree has seeds, and seeds make a tree.
Was that simple enough?
fah said:
it's quite obvious, a flawless thing, needs nothing no improvements.TruthSeeker said:
fah said:
want, need lets not split hairsTruthSeeker said:
fah said:
wrong, a flawless thing needs no neutrality or impartiality, absolutely nothing.TruthSeeker said:
fah said:
it's is easily claimed because it must be true.TruthSeeker said:
I'm not, no human is prefect, but to be imperfect is also not godly.TruthSeeker said:
That doesn't make creation imperfect. If He doesn't need creation, He is not dependent on creation. If He is not dependant on anything, than that makes Him perfect.fahrenheit 451 said:
That's what you are doing - and I'm trying to correct your mistake....
Needing nothing implies neutrality and impartiality!
Great argument!
Ok. But what I was saying is to not understand God's perspective in the same way you understand human's perspective.
truthseeker, if it's not dependant(a person who relies on/needs/wants,) creation then why do it. (back to the original post again I think) to create implies a need, making god imperfect for doing it.
even your word dependant, can be used in place of need /want.
"Needing nothing implies neutrality and impartiality!" I dont see it, it's not dependant on those two things as it's perfect.
" therefore as god is flawed, he cant be all knowing or all powerful thus not devine, so simply put non-existent." the logic of the arguement, makes it true.
but truthseeker to think like a human is all we know, as far as we know we are the most intelligent creature in this planet, we can only understand our own perspective try as we might we cant think like another creature, but we can make educated guesses.
even your word dependant, can be used in place of need /want.
"Needing nothing implies neutrality and impartiality!" I dont see it, it's not dependant on those two things as it's perfect.
" therefore as god is flawed, he cant be all knowing or all powerful thus not devine, so simply put non-existent." the logic of the arguement, makes it true.
but truthseeker to think like a human is all we know, as far as we know we are the most intelligent creature in this planet, we can only understand our own perspective try as we might we cant think like another creature, but we can make educated guesses.