Warcraft3

Yes and no. Everything is not necessarily planned or intended although everything is allowed. You seem to be implying that God is in control of every single decision, but I find that view of God to be fundamentally flawed. God has self-imposed limitations and so is not all knowing. The existance of free will demands that God does not control physical reality like a puppeter. So, yes there is a "natural order" within physical reality.

You are still indeed implying what I said you were. Lets remember here that not all suffering is identical. I could argue that some suffering is actually beneficial (pain receptors for example). The causes of suffering are different in each situation also. Suffering is a part of physical reality (although I believe mans suffering was greatly reduced before the fall). If God did not allow evil or suffering to exist in our reality, then our universe would be fundamentally different. Would this be a good thing? Or would humans be lacking a whole array of experiences/struggles which can serve to help us grow and mature? I, for one, do not think it would necessarily be a good thing. It might be more pleasant in the short run, but rather unfulfilling and static in the long run.

Um.......thanks, but I really was aware of that fact already.

"Unnecessary" according to who? According to you? Why is it "unnecessary"?

God is not defined by one attribute. A person can do things which seem "unloving" on the surface, but after one knows more about the specific situation (or more about the specific person) such actions might not be seen as "unloving" as they did at first.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

emotional

That's a good idea, but which theistic board? I'm not a Christian, and you know very well the Christian forums (CARM, BaptistBoard, Theologyweb, Christianforums etc) censor non-Christians.

I'm not a good debate either. I usually lose debates So what will it profit me to lose debates on a theistic forum instead of here? I don't post on the boards to debate, I post for the company and for sharing my opinions/beliefs. Anyway, most theists (including Christian fundies) rely on logic and reason rather than blind faith (ie they see their faiths as consonant with reason, and not as a voluntary fideistic decision independent of reason), so I expect I'd be as much ridiculed on a theistic forum as here. It's hard to find people who believe unreasoned faith is a good thing.

Warcraft3

Hey there Oolon I was wondering when you were going to post next, as you seem to be one of several here who really gets into the debate. Thats cool though, cause I like the discussion. Okay on to the post......

I am not trying to use a different definition of loving or anything, I just think it is a bit assuming to make a character judgement about God on a comparitive (spelling?) basis. Especially when we are looking at one attribute to the exclusion of all other attributes. God is loving, yes. But He is many other things as well, and so is not completely defined by love alone.

Some of the arguments I have heard atheists make are very good ones indeed (I have very close friends who are of the atheist variety), but this is not one of them in my opinion.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"

:boohoo:

Warcraft3

You will not be ridiculed by me. I may debate you or express disagreement (I may even use sarcasm), but I will not personally ridicule you for your beliefs.


Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

pz

I don't know either. I don't frequent any christian boards myself.

You are clearly unhappy here, and have just announced your departure. I'm merely trying to give you a positive suggestion.Beliefs which are not held by the majority here, and are received with mockery and derision. If you aren't trying to make a case for the legitimacy of your ideas, I really do not see the point.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you lose debates is that you are trying to defend patently false positions? I know that if I find myself on the losing end of an argument, what I have to do is reconsider what I was thinking.They do? Could have fooled me.Yes. I wonder why.

Warcraft3

Although this statement was not directed to me, I wanted to comment on it. I am here to listen to your arguments and do my best to make a case for my viewpoint. I do know that most people are pretty set in their ideas and often are not very open minded, so I have no delusions that I alone am going to change anyones mind. I like to discuss/debate because I find that I often learn alot about the topics being discussed through the debate. I also learn alot about people in general through debates.

Yes, many of us do think that reason and logic are natural components to faith. I find many of the arguments against belief to be rather poor, and so find the reasons not to believe somewhat unconvincing.

So yeah, reason and logic are important components within my belief system.


Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

GunnerJ

AHEM.

This is getting quite off topic.

To reiterate, if you all want to discuss the PoE take it to another forum where it's more suitable.

Don't make me split this thread! (It's kind of a pain in the ass...)

Warcraft3

Sorry about that I wasnt trying to get off topic, but you derned atheists are fun to talk to and we end up discussing many side issues. I will try to get back on topic.......

So...............how about that theistic evolution stuff?

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"

:boohoo:

scombrid

Okay, so here you throw out the biblical God, the God that induced plagues, famines, burned bushes, raised the dead, interferred with mortal life ad nausiem. I must assume then that you obtain your knowledge of god from observation.

But in another post you said that God's character couldn't be inferred from experience. Well if not from the bible and not from observation, from where do you Know that god is love and the creator?

From where then to you assume the legitimacy of theistic evolution? Seems rather superfluous to inject a god hypothesis where none is supported by observation and where you’ve thrown out the revealed “Truth” and is the literal bible.

Incredulity doesn’t count as valid evidence for a position. What biological features exist for which you find the explanations unsuitable? Describe them and somebody here might shed some light. Otherwise you have a big whopping god of the gaps argument on you hands.

And I suppose that half an eye is useless so the cascade of necessary mutations happening at once couldn’t have occurred. But wait 0.01% of an eye works for some organisms, like little ol unicellular guys with a photosensitive pigment.

Warcraft3

Hello scombird.

Nope. The God I believe in is quite Biblical. An all knowing, all controlling puppeter would be unable to change His mind or interact on a real dynamic level with humans. And since the God of the Bible CAN change His mind and interact in a dynamic way, I must conclude that He is not all knowing. He only knows that which He chooses to know. He limits Himself.

Not quite. Someone else tried to make this argument against me and here is what I replied....
You then asked.....
As shown above, you are over generalizing my position.

Again it is difficult for me to answer the question, since it is based on an incorrect understanding of my position.



As you have already read, I gave the flagellum as an example. All of the explanations I have read are excellent examples of imagination and creativity, but do not qualify as actual physical pathways. Too many unanswered questions and assumptions in my opinion.

Half of an eye? I do not remember making any arguments or statements concerning the eye. But I assume you are implying that because a unicellular organism has a structure that is photosensitive that we could eventually arrive at an eye through modifying that structure. I am sure it COULD happen through undirected processes, my question is DID it happen.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"

:boohoo: