Question for Creationists

First topic message reminder :

QUESTION FOR CREATIONISTS

For the sake of this argument we must assume God was responsible for the creation of all life on Earth.    To put the question in the right perspective, a brief quote from Genesis:

Genesis 24: ‘And God went on to say “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to their kind.” And it came to be.’

Now the scene is set for this serious question to our Creationist members:
If God was/is so powerful, able to create suns and planets, and all the life on Earth, why create dinosaurs then allow them to be exterminated from the planet about 65 million years ago? This event was believed to have been caused by a meteor 6 miles wide, (and a couple of others) slamming into Earth. Coupled with huge volcanic eruptions such events caused a change in the atmosphere, consequently responsible for a climate change making food resources in short supply and the ultimate death of the dinosaurs, coupled with poisonous gasses from the volcanic eruptions. This was exacerbated  due to thick dust  darkening the skies for a year or more causing the death and destruction of a lot of plant life as well as the dinosaurs.

As asked above, why did God allow this to happen and have to start all over again with different, new species of life? Surely with his power he could have stopped the meteors, or was it beyond his abilities, thereby making him not so powerful as portrayed and believed?

Over to you folks.

Your final paragraph is fair enough, from the pov of someone who follows an Abrahamic religion. However the fact remains god deliberately created a brutal universe with unneccesary suffering as the standard, the motives of which should be questionable for any free thinking person. That the ONLY way god could create the universe is by doing it the way it is, restrains him and devalues him and arguably makes his role redundant.

Eilzel wrote:Your final paragraph is fair enough, from the pov of someone who follows an Abrahamic religion. However the fact remains god deliberately created a brutal universe with unneccesary suffering as the standard, the motives of which should be questionable for any free thinking person. That the ONLY way god could create the universe is by doing it the way it is, restrains him and devalues him and arguably makes his role redundant.

But you can not learn anything about life and become wiser (or enlightened) without obstacles placed in front of you.

Only through suffering can you learn what type of human being you are.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Your final paragraph is fair enough, from the pov of someone who follows an Abrahamic religion. However the fact remains god deliberately created a brutal universe with unneccesary suffering as the standard, the motives of which should be questionable for any free thinking person. That the ONLY way god could create the universe is by doing it the way it is, restrains him and devalues him and arguably makes his role redundant.

But you can not learn anything about life and become wiser (or enlightened) without obstacles placed in front of you.

Only through suffering can you learn what type of human being you are.

the mantra of the defeated...the stoic who remains steadfast through all suffering isnt "great".....he's a mug or powerless....bloody minded possibly...but non the less........

surely the reality is that only through the aquisition of POWER do you realise what sort of human you are...

(thinking whether you use that power benignly or not and things like that)

darknessss wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

But you can not learn anything about life and become wiser (or enlightened) without obstacles placed in front of you.

Only through suffering can you learn what type of human being you are.

the mantra of the defeated...the stoic who remains steadfast through all suffering isnt "great".....he's a mug or powerless....bloody minded possibly...but non the less........

surely the reality is that only through the aquisition of POWER do you realise what sort of human you are...

(thinking whether you use that power benignly or not and things like that)

Sure, the acquisition of power is also a test. How you use your wealth or your muscle. That's why God makes some of us more powerful than others.

Thank you for highlighting another philosophical point.

Of course geographically it is the most devout who suffer the most; maybe zack has a point... The war torn middle east and poverty and crime ridden African and South America are the most devout places on Earth...

Eilzel wrote:Of course geographically it is the most devout who suffer the most; maybe zack has a point... The war torn middle east and poverty and crime ridden African and South America are the most devout places on Earth...

because the sufferers are "god" prone...after all they have to blame "someone"

so they blame themselves

laziness....and impotence, is a powerful draw to the mythical....

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

darknessss wrote:


the mantra of the defeated...the stoic who remains steadfast through all suffering isnt "great".....he's a mug or powerless....bloody minded possibly...but non the less........

surely the reality is that only through the aquisition of POWER do you realise what sort of human you are...

(thinking whether you use that power benignly or not and things like that)

Sure, the acquisition of power is also a test. How you use your wealth or your muscle. That's why God makes some of us more powerful than others.

Thank you for highlighting another philosophical point.  

A test it might well be in some respects zack...BUT why does it have to be "god sent"

lets try this....


is god omnipotent?

is god omniscient?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


So fracking has been responsible for every earthquake that has killed humans since their existance on this earth Ben

For fuck sake, that is daft beyond belief.

Wait, what? I was just pointing out that some earthquakes have been caused by human activity, chill out!

Which made no sense to the claim Eddie was making, where a God would not be responsible for any earthquake, so your point was utterly silly beyond belief.
That is just pointing out the absurdity of your point, so do not tell me to chill out when you post nonsense, that is just a poor way to deflect your absurdity

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:One day Earth will be destroyed and all life on Earth with it- did merciful Allah plan this? I'm not arguing the science, but 'god' didn't NEED to create a universe which works that way- unless you are saying god works within the restraints of natural laws, in which case he is not all powerful.

God created a universe where life exists in a cycle of creation and destruction.

And science has proved this, without a doubt. In fact, it is one of the fundamental laws of physics and therefore 'nature'.

If you're not arguing with science, then there's no need to argue with God.

To answer your question directly: yes, Allah has set a definite timespan for all creation including the universe itself. For there is something better than life in this universe.

There are many theories on the creation of the universe so how is just one science proving God.

For example:

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.



http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Or Hawkins


He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


Second we come to the next point how is it that it is Allah and not say Zeus or any other deity?
Claiming God exists is one thing you have the problem next which God is right if of God one does exist and if one exists it is incapable of doing anything to stop the suffering of innocent people of which no human plays any involvement in or does not care to do anything about this. To claim it is a test for people where innocent children die, is nothing short of barbaric in any shape or for, because this would mean this deity sacrificing the lives of innocent people just in order to test others, like for example parents.
That is barbaric and that the Abrahamic faiths are nothing more than death cults, because they make the suffering and death of innocent people acceptable. Any innocent person robbed of their life is not a test for them and even worse if they did not believe they would suffer according to these faith with then eternal suffering. Again barbaric and all according to believers to test others. Thus innocent people suffer not only in  human existence but in death all to serve the purpose of a chosen few that their deity has decided will live eternally happy. If you think that is acceptable, it makes you callus as it would this deity for the lives of others and it would mean you have little care for the well being others, because they are then expendable to this plan. It means then if a God exists that the only purpose many people would be is to suffer.
That is not love.

darknessss wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Of course geographically it is the most devout who suffer the most; maybe zack has a point... The war torn middle east and poverty and crime ridden African and South America are the most devout places on Earth...

because the sufferers are "god" prone...after all they have to blame "someone"

so they blame themselves

laziness....and impotence,  is a powerful draw to the mythical....

Good god-a-mighty but I think you just struck this whole thing directly on its head.

Powerless people turn their hopes and dreams to an idea of a higher power. Of course they do. It makes so much sense that it's a genuinely beautiful idea; so much so that you can't even really fault people for doing it.

Thank you for this; it's a fine example of the eloquence of rationality.

Eilzel wrote:On dinosaurs, I know it takes no imagination why they died. A meteor strike is the most accepted theory- I guess the dinosaurs summoned that too?

You seem to be missing the reason I raised the point.

God, if you believe in one, MUST have created the dinosaurs, then either purposefully or accidentally killed them off OR was powerless to stop them dying.

In which case god is EITHER evil, flawed or not all powerful (and so ungodlike- remember a 'god' is a human term with a human meaning).

Les, have you seen documentaries where cameramen leave a going animal to die?
WHY do they do that?

Your answer to that is the same as you can apply to God.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:On dinosaurs, I know it takes no imagination why they died. A meteor strike is the most accepted theory- I guess the dinosaurs summoned that too?

You seem to be missing the reason I raised the point.

God, if you believe in one, MUST have created the dinosaurs, then either purposefully or accidentally killed them off OR was powerless to stop them dying.

In which case god is EITHER evil, flawed or not all powerful (and so ungodlike- remember a 'god' is a human term with a human meaning).

Les, have you seen documentaries where cameramen leave a going animal to die?
WHY do they do that?

Your answer to that is the same as you can apply to God.

Do you realise Eddie by that answer you just proved Eilzels point.

Look back at what you said.
If the camerman left the animal to die, he either cannot act or chooses not to act, so which is it?

WHY does everyone assume God is all "good"??? Why does everyone assume God is perfect???
Why??! Who says?
Perhaps he makes mistakes? Perhaps he is the best "we" (if he made us in his image?) can ever be? Perhaps he is what we must aim for? Not perfection, but an almost perfection.

Perhaps it is the non-believers that believe he is supposed to be perfect?
Perhaps he sighs everytime people claim he should be?!!

Perhaps, just perhaps, he is waiting tor someone to say:
Well, I'm nearly dead and I've been the best I can be, done the best I could ever have done, realised my mistakes and not repeated them, and I've loved and been loved wholeheartedly and with real intent, I've been as perfect as I could ever be and I'm content that I've been as near to whole as I could ever be.
My work is almost done."

Perhaps that's all he ever requires of anyone?
He throws the shit at you and the good stuff and it's up to you.

Perhaps it's a simple, yet as deep, as that? [/quote]

Sorry that just does not cut it Eddie where again you are excusing something that if exists and can do something is now able to allow innocent people to die.
That is nothing short of wrong.
If you had the chance to save someones life, lets say your own daughter, which everyone believes we are all Gods children, are you saying you would not save your own daughter if you could?

Answer this first before we continue.

Second why do you wish to believe also insomething that also does bad?
Do you teach your own child to do bad?
If no, why would you want to beleieve in something that does bad things?

darknessss wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Sure, the acquisition of power is also a test. How you use your wealth or your muscle. That's why God makes some of us more powerful than others.

Thank you for highlighting another philosophical point.  

A test it might well be in some respects zack...BUT why does it have to be "god sent"

lets try this....


is god omnipotent?

is god omniscient?

I don't need God to predict where you are going with this, so I thought id save some time:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/q-and-a/overview-of-islam/if-god-is-omnipotent-and-omniscient-then-how-can-man-be-responsible-for-his-deeds-4766

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

God created a universe where life exists in a cycle of creation and destruction.

And science has proved this, without a doubt. In fact, it is one of the fundamental laws of physics and therefore 'nature'.

If you're not arguing with science, then there's no need to argue with God.

To answer your question directly: yes, Allah has set a definite timespan for all creation including the universe itself. For there is something better than life in this universe.

There are many theories on the creation of the universe so how is just one science proving God.

For example:

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.



http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Or Hawkins


He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


Second we come to the next point how is it that it is Allah and not say Zeus or any other deity?
Claiming God exists is one thing you have the problem next which God is right if of God one does exist and if one exists it is incapable of doing anything to stop the suffering of innocent people of which no human plays any involvement in or does not care to do anything about this. To claim it is a test for people where innocent children die, is nothing short of barbaric in any shape or for, because this would mean this deity sacrificing the lives of innocent people just in order to test others, like for example parents.
That is barbaric and that the Abrahamic faiths are nothing more than death cults, because they make the suffering and death of innocent people acceptable. Any innocent person robbed of their life is not a test for them and even worse if they did not believe they would suffer according to these faith with then eternal suffering. Again barbaric and all according to believers to test others. Thus innocent people suffer not only in  human existence but in death all to serve the purpose of a chosen few that their deity has decided will live eternally happy. If you think that is acceptable, it makes you callus as it would this deity for the lives of others and it would mean you have little care for the well being others, because they are then expendable to this plan. It means then if a God exists that the only purpose many people would be is to suffer.
That is not love.

Where did I say science has proven God?

Take your time and read again.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

darknessss wrote:

A test it might well be in some respects zack...BUT why does it have to be "god sent"

lets try this....


is god omnipotent?

is god omniscient?

I don't need God to predict where you are going with this, so I thought id save some time:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/q-and-a/overview-of-islam/if-god-is-omnipotent-and-omniscient-then-how-can-man-be-responsible-for-his-deeds-4766

That is just an interpretation by humans and their view on humans being responsible which attempts poorly to cut out of the equation any wrongs or inaction done by the deity.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



There are many theories on the creation of the universe so how is just one science proving God.

For example:

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.



http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Or Hawkins


He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


Second we come to the next point how is it that it is Allah and not say Zeus or any other deity?
Claiming God exists is one thing you have the problem next which God is right if of God one does exist and if one exists it is incapable of doing anything to stop the suffering of innocent people of which no human plays any involvement in or does not care to do anything about this. To claim it is a test for people where innocent children die, is nothing short of barbaric in any shape or for, because this would mean this deity sacrificing the lives of innocent people just in order to test others, like for example parents.
That is barbaric and that the Abrahamic faiths are nothing more than death cults, because they make the suffering and death of innocent people acceptable. Any innocent person robbed of their life is not a test for them and even worse if they did not believe they would suffer according to these faith with then eternal suffering. Again barbaric and all according to believers to test others. Thus innocent people suffer not only in  human existence but in death all to serve the purpose of a chosen few that their deity has decided will live eternally happy. If you think that is acceptable, it makes you callus as it would this deity for the lives of others and it would mean you have little care for the well being others, because they are then expendable to this plan. It means then if a God exists that the only purpose many people would be is to suffer.
That is not love.

Where did I say science has proven God?

Take your time and read again.

I have no need to take my time, you tried to claim it has proven God, I disagree.
There is no evidence that proves a deity exists.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Where did I say science has proven God?

Take your time and read again.

I have no need to take my time, you tried to claim it has proven God, I disagree.
There is no evidence that proves a deity exists.

Then you will have no problem showing me where I said science has proven God

But you can't. All you can say is "I tried". That's a sign of your own insecurity. Not mine.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I have no need to take my time, you tried to claim it has proven God, I disagree.
There is no evidence that proves a deity exists.

Then you will have no problem showing me where I said science has proven God  

But you can't. All you can say is "I tried". That's a sign of your own insecurity. Not mine.

Why did you bring science into this from the very start?

God created a universe where life exists in a cycle of creation and destruction.

And science has proved this, without a doubt. In fact, it is one of the fundamental laws of physics and therefore 'nature'.

You just lied, you claimed science has proved God created a universe.
Back to silly claims of emotions, you never learn to grow up it seems.
So you just want to avoid points you cannot answer fine by me

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Then you will have no problem showing me where I said science has proven God  

But you can't. All you can say is "I tried". That's a sign of your own insecurity. Not mine.

Why did you bring science into this from the very start?

God created a universe where life exists in a cycle of creation and destruction.

And science has proved this, without a doubt. In fact, it is one of the fundamental laws of physics and therefore 'nature'.

You just lied, you claimed science has proved God created a universe.
Back to silly claims of emotions, you never learn to grow up it seems.
So you just want to avoid points you cannot answer fine by me

You're just making assumptions now. None of what you quoted stated that science has proven God.

Let me break it down for you slowly: the question was why does God create a universe with catastrophes such as volcanoes and earthquakes?

And I said, science has proven that the most fertile land is found in these regions. Therefore there is a destruction-construction cycle and that's Gods purpose for having such a universe.

Simple enough for you. Nowhere did I say science has proven God. If you can't understand this, then what choice do I have left but to patronise you.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Why did you bring science into this from the very start?

God created a universe where life exists in a cycle of creation and destruction.

And science has proved this, without a doubt. In fact, it is one of the fundamental laws of physics and therefore 'nature'.

You just lied, you claimed science has proved God created a universe.
Back to silly claims of emotions, you never learn to grow up it seems.
So you just want to avoid points you cannot answer fine by me

You're just making assumptions now. None of what you quoted stated that science has proven God.

Let me break it down for you slowly: the question was why does God create a universe with catastrophes such as volcanoes and earthquakes?

And I said, science has proven that the most fertile land is found in these regions. Therefore there is a destruction-construction cycle and that's Gods purpose for having such a universe.

Simple enough for you. Nowhere did I say science has proven God. If you can't understand this, then what choice do I have left but to patronise you.

So now you deny the evidence from your own words.
You can deny all you like but you claimed the evidence of the universe's creation was proven by science and now you change your mind and actually lie.
You are then going off destruction where fertile land is best is now in some way also relevant to a deity as if it gives credance to the idea, which is absurd beyond blief, when the question posed to you is why allow such destruction. That means why allow innocent people or animals to die with such events.
All you merely did was deflect the points with an irrelavnce to fertile land.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You're just making assumptions now. None of what you quoted stated that science has proven God.

Let me break it down for you slowly: the question was why does God create a universe with catastrophes such as volcanoes and earthquakes?

And I said, science has proven that the most fertile land is found in these regions. Therefore there is a destruction-construction cycle and that's Gods purpose for having such a universe.

Simple enough for you. Nowhere did I say science has proven God. If you can't understand this, then what choice do I have left but to patronise you.

So now you deny the evidence from your own words.
You can deny all you like but you claimed the evidence of the universe's creation was proven by science and now you change your mind and actually lie.
You are then going off destruction where fertile land is best is now in some way also relevant to a deity as if it gives credance to the idea, which is absurd beyond blief, when the question posed to you is why allow such destruction. That means why allow innocent people to die with such events.
All you merely did was deflect the points with an irrelavnce to fertile land.

Lol! Your only recourse is to call me a liar. That says it all.

Your assumptions are making a mockery of you. Again, read carefully what I said. I have mentioned all those points in my string of replies.

And fyi: Everyone dies. Even the innocent.

The fact you're also ignoring is why do people choose to live near these areas? Hence fertile land. And that's is what science has proved. I never said anything more. You're just assuming and diverting.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


So now you deny the evidence from your own words.
You can deny all you like but you claimed the evidence of the universe's creation was proven by science and now you change your mind and actually lie.
You are then going off destruction where fertile land is best is now in some way also relevant to a deity as if it gives credance to the idea, which is absurd beyond blief, when the question posed to you is why allow such destruction. That means why allow innocent people to die with such events.
All you merely did was deflect the points with an irrelavnce to fertile land.

Lol! Your only recourse is to call me a liar. That says it all.

Your assumptions are making a mockery of you. Again, read carefully what I said. I have mentioned all those points in my string of replies.

And fyi: Everyone dies. Even the innocent.

The fact you're also ignoring is why do people choose to live near these areas? Hence fertile land. And that's is what science has proved. I never said anything more. You're just assuming and diverting.

I proved you lied.
So everyone dies, has to be the most callus answer someone can give where people die before their time. Again excusing basically evil, where from childn to anyone has been denied a chance to live a full life.
This is what I mean about religion it turns rational people to say the most absurd claims and views about why people should die before their time.
You do not even need to live near such an area to be killed by the fallout of such events or have you never heard of a Tsunami? Ash fallout which can devastate crops, affecting the eco system balance.
So you really are not thinking this out.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Your only recourse is to call me a liar. That says it all.

Your assumptions are making a mockery of you. Again, read carefully what I said. I have mentioned all those points in my string of replies.

And fyi: Everyone dies. Even the innocent.

The fact you're also ignoring is why do people choose to live near these areas? Hence fertile land. And that's is what science has proved. I never said anything more. You're just assuming and diverting.

I proved you lied.
So everyone dies, has to be the most callus answer someone can give where people die before their time. Again excusing basically evil, where from childn to anyone has been denied a chance to live a full life.
This is what I mean about religion it turns rational people to say the most absurd claims and views about why people should die before their time.
You do not even need to live near such an area to be killed by the fallout of such events or have you never heard of a Tsunami? Ash fallout which can devastate crops, affecting the eco system balance.
So you really are not thinking this out.

Fine. If you think I'm a liar, then you can disregard every thing I say.

My points are clear and only YOU are failing to understand. Think about that for a bit.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I proved you lied.
So everyone dies, has to be the most callus answer someone can give where people die before their time. Again excusing basically evil, where from childn to anyone has been denied a chance to live a full life.
This is what I mean about religion it turns rational people to say the most absurd claims and views about why people should die before their time.
You do not even need to live near such an area to be killed by the fallout of such events or have you never heard of a Tsunami? Ash fallout which can devastate crops, affecting the eco system balance.
So you really are not thinking this out.

Fine. If you think I'm a liar, then you can disregard every thing I say.

My points are clear and only YOU are failing to understand. Think about that for a bit.

Yet another copout reply.
At least you know you are talking nonsense about how far reaching such disater events can be and not just locally.
Off you trot then.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Fine. If you think I'm a liar, then you can disregard every thing I say.

My points are clear and only YOU are failing to understand. Think about that for a bit.

Yet another copout reply.
At least you know you are talking nonsense about how far reaching such disater events can be and not just locally.
Off you trot then.

You have forced me to make another simple point: construction and destruction don't have to coincide in a temporal sense (ie at the same time).

Sorry Didge, but you do force me to patronise you at times.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Yet another copout reply.
At least you know you are talking nonsense about how far reaching such disater events can be and not just locally.
Off you trot then.

You have forced me to make another simple point: construction and destruction don't have to coincide in a temporal sense (ie at the same time).

Sorry Didge, but you do force me to patronise you at times.

Never claimed they did but we are talking about the consequences of destruction and how it does take the lives of people before there time.
That shows no compassion or love by such a thing if it existed called a deity.
Or it simply choses not to care.

Eds, if your god doesn't listen to or answer prayers and is powerless in natures affairs then why is it so hard to imagine his nonexistence? Your god is pointless by your own definition (and yours is very much a self defined god).

Honestly it sounds to me like you are fitting god to suit your questions- when in fact like many it is just too much of a push to think there is nothing after death and the universe needs no creator- I understand that, years of thinking otherwise makes it a hard idea to dismiss.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Your final paragraph is fair enough, from the pov of someone who follows an Abrahamic religion. However the fact remains god deliberately created a brutal universe with unneccesary suffering as the standard, the motives of which should be questionable for any free thinking person. That the ONLY way god could create the universe is by doing it the way it is, restrains him and devalues him and arguably makes his role redundant.

But you can not learn anything about life and become wiser (or enlightened) without obstacles placed in front of you.

Only through suffering can you learn what type of human being you are.

Zack we are from the same school of thought.
Life is nothing if you cannot learn and keep learning and keep improving.

If you don't change many times throughout a lifetime you'lol always be a hungry caterpillar.

Brasidas wrote:Sorry that just does not cut it Eddie where again you are excusing something that if exists and can do something is now able to allow innocent people to die.
That is nothing short of wrong.
If you had the chance to save someones life, lets say your own daughter, which everyone believes we are all Gods children, are you saying you would not save your own daughter if you could?

Answer this first before we continue.

Second why do you wish to believe also insomething that also does bad?
Do you teach your own child to do bad?
If no, why would you want to beleieve in something that does bad things?

You cannot define God with logic.
I think that's always the problem with this argument.

And if you call that a cop-out then, that's your peroration, but I can only explain my position so many times before I'm just repeating myself.

Told is a matter of faith.
Perhaps I'm wrong and God doesnt exist.
Perhaps you're wrong and he does.

We will never know will we?

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You have forced me to make another simple point: construction and destruction don't have to coincide in a temporal sense (ie at the same time).

Sorry Didge, but you do force me to patronise you at times.

Never claimed they did but we are talking about the consequences of destruction and how it does take the lives of people before there time.
That shows no compassion or love by such a thing if it existed called a deity.
Or it simply choses not to care.

Why does ones time on earth have to be defined by their life span?

It could be defined by many things, such as their achievements.

Not knowing how long you have to live motivates you to live every day as if it was as your last. And not putting off things today, hoping for a tomorrow. There is compassion in such wisdom.

eddie wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Sorry that just does not cut it Eddie where again you are excusing something that if exists and can do something is now able to allow innocent people to die.
That is nothing short of wrong.
If you had the chance to save someones life, lets say your own daughter, which everyone believes we are all Gods children, are you saying you would not save your own daughter if you could?

Answer this first before we continue.

Second why do you wish to believe also insomething that also does bad?
Do you teach your own child to do bad?
If no, why would you want to beleieve in something that does bad things?

You cannot define God with logic.
I think that's always the problem with this argument.

And if you call that a cop-out then, that's your peroration, but I can only explain my position so many times before I'm just repeating myself.

Told is a matter of faith.
Perhaps I'm wrong and God doesnt exist.
Perhaps you're wrong and he does.

We will never know will we?

Point 1) Says who?
Point 2) Of course I can question this, all you are doing is offering no explanation as to why I cannot.
Point 3) It is avoiding the points
Point 4) I do not discount that a God may exist, my view is that if one does exist that are unable to do anything or do not care about humans.
Who wants to believe in something like that as it is either useless or evil.
Eddie the point on this is if a God did exist and on why it does nothing or is incapable of doing anything.

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

But you can not learn anything about life and become wiser (or enlightened) without obstacles placed in front of you.

Only through suffering can you learn what type of human being you are.

Zack we are from the same school of thought.
Life is nothing if you cannot learn and keep learning and keep improving.

If you don't change many times throughout a lifetime you'lol always be a hungry caterpillar.

Precisely. Unfortunately people with no spirituality will never understand us.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Never claimed they did but we are talking about the consequences of destruction and how it does take the lives of people before there time.
That shows no compassion or love by such a thing if it existed called a deity.
Or it simply choses not to care.

Why does ones time on earth have to be defined by their life span?

It could be defined by many things, such as their achievements.

Not knowing how long you have to live motivates you to live every day as if it was as your last. And not putting off things today, hoping for a tomorrow. There is compassion in such wisdom.

So a baby denied the chance of life is defined by its achievements, which would amount to as little as eating, shitting, laughing and crying. How does a child quantify how long it has left if it is killed by a naiural disaster?
Why if there is a God would it allow a child to die, in pain and deny the child a chance to live out a full life?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

Zack we are from the same school of thought.
Life is nothing if you cannot learn and keep learning and keep improving.

If you don't change many times throughout a lifetime you'lol always be a hungry caterpillar.

Precisely. Unfortunately people with no spirituality will never understand us.

You do not have to be religious to be spiritual.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Why does ones time on earth have to be defined by their life span?

It could be defined by many things, such as their achievements.

Not knowing how long you have to live motivates you to live every day as if it was as your last. And not putting off things today, hoping for a tomorrow. There is compassion in such wisdom.

So a baby denied the chance of life is defined by its achievements, which would amount to as little as eating, shitting, laughing and crying. How does a child quantify how long it has left if it is killed by a natiural disater?
Why if there is a God would it allow a child to die and deny the child a chance to live out a life?

As you're not a spiritual person, you see death as a bad thing and a definite end.

For the religious, death is simply a new and better beginning. Especially those untouched by sin. Yes, that means BABIES! Lol!

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Precisely. Unfortunately people with no spirituality will never understand us.

You do not have to be religious to be spiritual.

Again, where did I say that?

Or are you going to resort to calling me a liar again. Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So a baby denied the chance of life is defined by its achievements, which would amount to as little as eating, shitting, laughing and crying. How does a child quantify how long it has left if it is killed by a natiural disater?
Why if there is a God would it allow a child to die and deny the child a chance to live out a life?

As you're not a spiritual person, you see death as a bad thing and a definite end.

For the religious, death is simply a new and better beginning. Especially those untouched by sin.  Yes, that means BABIES! Lol!

So the bases for your defence of a child dying in agony never having the chance of a known existancee is again based on something you cannot prove, an after life.
I know what it means for the religious.
That is not much comfort to the parents of the child who have lost their child to something out of their control which if a deity did exists does nothing to stop this unnecessary pain and suffering. Then you have the factor of if they believe in the wrong deity, which then opens up far greater problems.
So how does a Christian baby enter a Islmic heaven when the belief is only those who followed Christianity before islam gain entry?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


You do not have to be religious to be spiritual.

Again, where did I say that?

Or are you going to resort to calling me a liar again. Lol!

Its your view people will not understand something which you cannot even hope to understand yourself yuet claim to say you do

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

As you're not a spiritual person, you see death as a bad thing and a definite end.

For the religious, death is simply a new and better beginning. Especially those untouched by sin.  Yes, that means BABIES! Lol!

So the bases for your defence of a child dying in agony never having the chance of a known existancee is again based on something you cannot prove, an after life.
I know what it means for the religious.
That is not much comfort to the parents of the child who have lost their child to something out of their control which if a deity did exists does nothing to stop this unnecessary pain and suffering. Then you have the factor of if they believe in the wrong deity, which then opens up far greater problems.
So how does a Christian baby enter a Islmic heaven when the belief is only those who followed Christianity before islam gain entry?

You were asking about how God can allow babies to die, so of course my answer is religious. Seriously? lol!

Yes, parents will miss their children and wonder what could have been. But those parents will learn through their suffering who they really are.

As for Islam, all children and those not capable (intellectually) will enter heaven. Including Christian babies.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So the bases for your defence of a child dying in agony never having the chance of a known existancee is again based on something you cannot prove, an after life.
I know what it means for the religious.
That is not much comfort to the parents of the child who have lost their child to something out of their control which if a deity did exists does nothing to stop this unnecessary pain and suffering. Then you have the factor of if they believe in the wrong deity, which then opens up far greater problems.
So how does a Christian baby enter a Islmic heaven when the belief is only those who followed Christianity before islam gain entry?

You were asking about how God can allow babies to die, so of course my answer is religious. Seriously? lol!

Yes, parents will miss their children and wonder what could have been. But those parents will learn through their suffering who they really are.

As for Islam, all children and those not capable (intellectually) will enter heaven. Including Christian babies.

Is that your interpretation of Islam?
Second that still does nothing to stop unnecessary pain to a child and basically is nothing short of callus and evil to allow to happen.
If you think dying in pain is okay, then you have no understanding of compassion.
How wil the parents learn who they are, to the point they kn ow a God exists and has allowed their child to die in agony and has died for no other reasons than for them to suffere again unnecessarily.
This is what I mean about religious people, they allow people to suffer and think it is actually a good thing.
Beggars belief

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Again, where did I say that?

Or are you going to resort to calling me a liar again. Lol!

Its your view people will not understand something which you cannot even hope to understand yourself yuet claim to say you do

Again, I never said you have to be religious to be spiritual. but I recogonise when people have no spirituality.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Its your view people will not understand something which you cannot even hope to understand yourself yuet claim to say you do

Again, I never said you have to be religious to be spiritual. but I recogonise when people have no spirituality.

That is complete and utter nonsense, as your bases for spirituality is based on religion if you think I am not spiritual.
For a start I am spirtual, which is why you have no comprehension on this, can you think what I am spiritual on?

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You were asking about how God can allow babies to die, so of course my answer is religious. Seriously? lol!

Yes, parents will miss their children and wonder what could have been. But those parents will learn through their suffering who they really are.

As for Islam, all children and those not capable (intellectually) will enter heaven. Including Christian babies.

Is that your interpretation of Islam?
Second that still does nothing to stop unnecessary pain to a child and basically is nothing short of callus and evil to allow to happen.
If you think dying in pain is okay, then you have no understanding of compassion.
How wil the parents learn who they are, to the point they kn ow a God exists and has allowed their child to die in agony and has died for no other reasons than for them to suffere again unnecessarily.
This is what I mean about religious people, they allow people to suffer and think it is actually a good thing.
Beggars belief

As I've said earlier, people with no spirituality will never understand. No matter how much you beg for belief.

Parents will learn who they are by how they respond to the suffering and death of their child.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Again, I never said you have to be religious to be spiritual. but I recogonise when people have no spirituality.

That is complete and utter nonsense, as your bases for spirituality is based on religion if you think I am not spiritual.
For a start I am spirtual, which is why you have no comprehension on this, can you think what I am spiritual on?

Again you assume my sprituality is based on my faith alone. How absurd and naive. Do you really think religious people are so 2 dimensional? Of course you do. And that's why you don't get it.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Is that your interpretation of Islam?
Second that still does nothing to stop unnecessary pain to a child and basically is nothing short of callus and evil to allow to happen.
If you think dying in pain is okay, then you have no understanding of compassion.
How wil the parents learn who they are, to the point they kn ow a God exists and has allowed their child to die in agony and has died for no other reasons than for them to suffere again unnecessarily.
This is what I mean about religious people, they allow people to suffer and think it is actually a good thing.
Beggars belief

As I've said earlier, people with no spirituality will never understand. No matter how much you beg for belief.

Parents will learn who they are by how they respond to the suffering and death of their child.

What a copout reply.
I have spirtuality which shows you only associate this with religion.
Again why should the child have to suffer in agony?
To allow something innocent to suffer is evil, there is no two ways about this.
By this you are stating it is acceptable for people to suffer.
That is evil.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

That is complete and utter nonsense, as your bases for spirituality is based on religion if you think I am not spiritual.
For a start I am spirtual, which is why you have no comprehension on this, can you think what I am spiritual on?

Again you assume my sprituality is based on my faith alone. How absurd and naive. Do you really think religious people are so 2 dimensional? Of course you do. And that's why you don't get it.

I think you will find it is you that wrongly assumed on me, when you said you recognise people without spirtuality and yet you are wrong.
Again.
So will you admit you thus cannot tell what people are spiritual as clearly you are basing who is on a misunderstanding one born clearly from religion, as you clearly were wrong about me.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

As I've said earlier, people with no spirituality will never understand. No matter how much you beg for belief.

Parents will learn who they are by how they respond to the suffering and death of their child.

What a copout reply.
I have spirtuality which shows you only associate this with religion.
Again why should the child have to suffer in agony?
To allow something innocent to suffer is evil, there is no two ways about this.
By this you are stating it is acceptable for people to suffer.
That is evil.

Again - only through suffering do you learn who you truly are.

You're making me sound like Buddha. Lol! That's how little spirituality you have. You live in a world where all you see is physical matter (ie the material world).

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Again you assume my sprituality is based on my faith alone. How absurd and naive. Do you really think religious people are so 2 dimensional? Of course you do. And that's why you don't get it.

I think you will find it is you that wrongly assumed on me, when you said you recognise people without spirtuality and yet you are wrong.
Again.
So will you admit you thus cannot tell what people are spiritual as clearly you are basing who is on a misunderstanding one born clearly from religion, as you clearly were wrong about me.

Your question was predictable, so read my answer above.

Feel free to give me your version of spirituality - I'm off to work out and then out for the night.

I will read it later. I could do with a good laugh. ;-)