dairygirl4u2c Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 he did create the conditions for evil to exist though. and he did create suffering that has nothing to do with anyone beig evil, eg, being born with diseases and suffering etc. just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudreyGrace Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 clarification: i don't mean suffering etc as "evil" thank you, dairygirl, for making me realize that what I said may be misconstrued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah147 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Evil came from the disobediance, out of freewill, from the angels and Adam/Eve. God is all good and only good comes from God. God ALLOWS evil, and grows us into Saints through suffering, but nothing in God is evil. I don't know where Grace got that about "(God) He created evil". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Yesterday my daughter was standing waiting for a tram, as one left some brats spat at her. Out of too much easy life comes evil. A gentleman and a lady came to her aid with words of kindness. Out of suffering and hardship comes goodness and kindness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deb Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 God is real. For those who have been given the gift of faith, no proof is necessary. To those who have not the gift of faith, no amount of proof will ever be enough. If you look at all the miracles that have occurred and are still occurring in this world and they can have thousands of witnesses and it is never enough for the Dawkins crowd. (whose arguments are total crud to begin with.) So, just take my word for it. God exists. Jesus Christ exists, the Holy Spirit exists, the Blessed Mother exists. They are really amesome too. I pray you can all meet them some day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Ken Miller's opinion of [i]Expelled[/i]. [url="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/"]Trouble ahead for science[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) i actually have been needing to perhaps come to grips with the idea that perhaps God could be proven. some one pointed out a pretty basic idea... the laws of thermodynamics. i don't think they knew what they were on to. i've always thought it cheap to say "well, as long as we can conclude more than likely an uncaused caused caused everything... even if that's just particles existing etc, a primordial soup, a ticking time bomb etc.. then God exists". to make it more meaningful.... you'd have to prove something beyond that, before that, etc, then the uncaused caused equals but with the laws of thermodynaics, we realize that matter is constantly breaking down. (there are some who say the universe will go out with a bang, not a whimper, but the laws in any case say we break down to nothing). this means that if we did have this supposed bunch of stuff... it would have to have went back up and up in terms of energy levels, infinitely. in a sense, this is somewhat just another way of thinking about the infinite causal chain of objects... but given we know the big bang started out at a point and exploded to to speak, we're talking about not so much an infiinte pool table balls knocking each other, so to speak, but rather an infinitely rising mass of energy. this is too counter to what we are familiar with in everyday life. sure, an uncaused cause is not directly analogous to a bike rolling etc as we don't see those everyday.... but we can say based on laws we know, that an infinite energy level is not part of anything we could say more than likely exists.... right? how could we have a chain of energy breaking down with a definite ending point, but not a definite starting point? wouldn't that be contradictory? the energy that was put into the system would then be finite, it ended, there's a certain amount of energy that was in the chain by virtue of the end.... if there was no beginning and an infinite amount of energy, it would have to have an infinte end, too, which isn't what we observe. if God is the uncaused caused beyond trying to define that as being mass that could exist, and would have to be before that mass occurred... that suddenly become very significant. i know some try to point to quantum level, and say that random ness does occur, which means existence could just be random per similiarities to our world. but to my understanding, random quirks occur from other random quirks, and only in mass, which has to occur to begin with. ie, i dont think you find quantum stuff in a vaccum. we'd have to assume quantum particles exploded into something... if we assumed there were quantum soups in the beginning. we dont see quantum stuff exploding into anything other than other quantum stuff, though. it'd have to have been a unique event that we're unfamiliar with for it to be quantum to mass... but it's contrary to what we know so far. in a very real sense, though, our knowledge of trying to prove God, continues to become debateable as our knowledge of the cosmos exists, leaning about quantum stuff, etc. so i'm not sure i see a way except to admit that the most basic idea of an uncaused cause, in a meaningful sense, makes sense. (as is all that was posited by most theologians anyway) Edited June 13, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted June 14, 2012 Author Share Posted June 14, 2012 so i'm not sure i see a way except to admit that the most basic idea of an uncaused cause, in a meaningful sense, beyond random partiles and randomness etc, makes sense. (as is all that was posited by most theologians anyway) it is much like the proverbial cue stick hit the balls. that stick is by definition beyond time and space and our laws. it might not be "intelligent" as we like to think etc... but it's there by reason of this cause and effect world we live in. a ''cause' is more than likely something we'd expect, given we're focusing less on random ness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r2Dtoo Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1339632984' post='2444425'] so i'm not sure i see a way except to admit that the most basic idea of an uncaused cause, in a meaningful sense, beyond random partiles and randomness etc, makes sense. (as is all that was posited by most theologians anyway) it is much like the proverbial cue stick hit the balls. that stick is by definition beyond time and space and our laws. it might not be "intelligent" as we like to think etc... but it's there by reason of this cause and effect world we live in. a ''cause' is more than likely something we'd expect, given we're focusing less on random ness. [/quote] Wow, I'm sure that would be considered brilliant in whatever parallel universe you're from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 [img]http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss282/mho_owen/shrek.jpg[/img] [quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1339638773' post='2444453'] Wow, I'm sure that would be considered brilliant in whatever parallel universe you're from. [/quote] I think Dairys been to the same physics class as Prof Dawkins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 People that claim to have proof of god, come from the ignorant position and appeal to a God of the Gaps. It seems that the Christian god requires faith and belief otherwise us Atheists wouldn't be doomed as the Christian bible says we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 hey dude! Welcome back! You hear about Leah Libresco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1340741427' post='2449153'] hey dude! Welcome back! You hear about Leah Libresco? [/quote] Yeah, I did. Never heard of her before. Read her reasoning on why she converted. Made sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I thought of you when I heard it... hope things are well with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1340741711' post='2449158'] I thought of you when I heard it... hope things are well with you [/quote] Oh, because we are (were, in her case) Atheists? Things are good with me, thanks for asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now