Was God a Smart Man?

[Python.]

Did he (or He) intend for people like Isaac Newton and Galileo to be born?

Did He intend to create all the species of the world and plan for extinction and natural selection?

To put the World on an axis so we could have a day/night cycle?

To plant natural phenomenons?

For Adam and Eve to eat the Forbidden Fruit?

 

Lot for a guy to do in 6 days, and that's only a couple

 

P.S.: I'm an Atheist asking mainly Christians

[Seminal Inhalation]

Python, you're drunk. Go home.

[The Radiated Banana]

Answering the questions since im forced to take bible class, ive asked most these questions too.

 

1.He didnt intend i think, but i think christians believe that their god wants humans to have their own thoughts and shits. So yeah, not his choice.

 

2. Prolly didnt plan it. But for the diversity part i think it was suppose to be a gift to mankind or smthin. Being beautiful and all.

 

3. Not sure about the axis thing but for day and night, i think it was that the light was called day and the dark was called night. When he made the light probably made the sun or something?(my guess) Axis thing is prolly smthin to explain it so it makes sense. Wait just realised. Isnt the axis for the seasons :T. The rotation is for the day and night cycle. Meh

 

4. Probably. Why not.

 

5. Yeah prolly didnt plan but the christians think that god wants dem to be freeeeeeee and like different from other animals and stuff

 

6. It is believed that those 7 days could be either literal, or could be anything. Cuz i remember reading smwhere a while back the earth's day use to be 25 hours. Also if u take it literally, he couldnt know it was 7 days without making the earth and its axis and rotation and stuff.

 

P.S. Im athiest too. So these are thoughts based on stuff i heard in bible class.

P.P.S. Might not be accurate as i normally fall asleep after 10-20 mins of bible class

P.P.P.S. Its not really fun

P.P.P.P.S. Might wanna wait for like jjjon or smthin to answer

P.P.P.P.P.S. Potato

[ozy]

We don´t know anything about God, with the exception that he loves us . I´m saying that as a Christian.

[The Radiated Banana]

We don´t know anything about God, with the exception that he loves us . I´m saying that as a Christian.

the bible begs to differ

[ozy]

the bible begs to differ

 

God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him.

[praise]

Hmm

[The Radiated Banana]

God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him.

bible says a whole lot more i think. not just dat

[The Radiated Banana]

God is a idiot. All about force and trickery. Been there. Done that.

im not a christian but dont put that there. people aint gonna like that

[ozy]

bible says a whole lot more i think. not just dat

 

True that, but isn´t that the message of the bible?

[The Radiated Banana]

True that, but isn´t that the message of the bible?

dunnow. im not christian

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

Did he (or He) intend for people like Isaac Newton and Galileo to be born?

Did He intend to create all the species of the world and plan for extinction and bio-diversity?

To put the World on an axis so we could have a day/night cycle?

To plant natural phenomenons?

For Adam and Eve to eat the Forbidden Fruit?

 

Lot for a guy to do in 7 days, and that's only a couple

 

P.S.: I'm an Atheist asking mainly Christians

Alright. As a Catholic Student Learning Philosophy, I will do my best to answer these questions. Please dont persectue for my faith.

 

1. Whether he intended for Galileo or Newton to be born is certain. He intended for them to come into our world. I am making a slight assumption that some of their ideas challenge the church, so your question is why would God create someone who would challenge the Church. The people themselves chose to pursue these ideas. They were attempting to understand the world at a time when the Church was the main dictator of what was true and what was false. So while their original message seems to go against God and attempt to understand him, they sought out a scientific truth. Even today, the Church works with scientists to discover the truth of Life and the Earth.

 

2. From my understanding, he created many animals. However, from a religious standpoint, the world has always been influenced by chaos and evil. Why does this matter? Because from my biology studies, I have learned that evolution often comes from the need to survive, that being killing to survive or evolving. God created humans and nature to adapt and survive. He saw that far ahead. And clearly, we are survivng, however hard life may seem, we are alive. However, due to greed, anger, or personal desire, humans (and even animals) are adpating to sustain that life. While it is not always a physical change, it is an evolution in our hearts such as wanting more or not sharing our resources.

 

3. I'll go with a classic idea on that one for now. We are attempting to understand how God thinks. However, we cannot comprehend all that he has done. Why does gravity exist? Etc etc is answered by science. As for did he INTEND for an axis to exist, I can't give you a straightforward answer. I'd revert to science's look on it.

 

4. What we see, as humans, is an unnatural phenomenon. To God, he designed it that way. I'll put it like Saint Thomas Aquinas put God as a designer. Anything that is designed often needs a good designer. Even when it looks weird to others, the designer understands the purpose for the object. Because of that, God is the perfect designer, because things do work out. That isn't word for word the exact saying, but it is the idea.

 

5. That one is subject to MANY opinions and ideas. I'll give my best explanation. Also, old testament stories are often more symbolic than real. Adam and Eve were influenced by their conscience which had not formed enough at the beginning of the world. Due to this, they saw no original harm in eating the Forbidden Fruit. The Snake/devil is their conscience. So why would God allow something like that to happen? Because he loved us enough to give us Free Will. He wanted us to learn from our mistakes and eventually evolve into a better race. But our personal desires grew as well. That ties into Cain and Abel later on.

 

So, I gotta get back to work. Reply if you want me to expand on something.

[ADAMPOKE111]

If God was real, then possibly.

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

If God was real, then possibly.

If you have a moment, I suggest you or anyone, read this passage. It is long, but explains why God is real. Please do not respond with stupid answers.

 

I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

 

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

 

In short: Someone must do something to put another action in motion. God is that invisible force.

 

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

 

In short: Everything happens due to another event. An infinite chain of cause and event must end somewhere. The beginning is God.

 

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

 

In short: Soemthing must exist for something else to exist. That "something" or someone was God.

 

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

 

In short: In the chain of, best, highest, greatest, there must be someone at the top. It is not an endless chain. That someone is God.

 

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

 

In short: The way our bodies and nature works cannot be just a simple coincidence. A grand designer is required. That person is God.

[F CHARLIE]

I will say again for the record that I am agnostic. I just have a large history with this.

 

1. It is believed that it may not or was not a literal seven days.

2. As far as the biology questions go, generally yes. God would have made an adaptive world but it is hard to know what it was before then after mans fall into sin. Would God have to make changes, in creation, to accommodate the change that man undertook?

3. Man was made with free will which means the church is fallible and could be proven wrong.

 

The idea of a man being "intended" is your most interesting posited idea. It is more reasonable to state that each one of us is a result of gentic dice than it is to say that "intended" each human being and all of their qualities. As we have free will the course of our life would not be intended per say but the potential courses, yes.

[Pistolvania]

If you have a moment, I suggest you or anyone, read this passage. It is long, but explains why God is real. Please do not respond with stupid answers.

 

I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

 

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

 

In short: Someone must do something to put another action in motion. God is that invisible force.

 

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

 

In short: Everything happens due to another event. An infinite chain of cause and event must end somewhere. The beginning is God.

 

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

 

In short: Soemthing must exist for something else to exist. That "something" or someone was God.

 

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

 

In short: In the chain of, best, highest, greatest, there must be someone at the top. It is not an endless chain. That someone is God.

 

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

 

In short: The way our bodies and nature works cannot be just a simple coincidence. A grand designer is required. That person is God.

 

This isn't even close to proof. You are questioning the beginning of everything, and then saying that God did it. You are presenting a hypothesis. 

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

This isn't even close to proof. You are questioning the beginning of everything, and then saying that God did it. You are presenting a hypothesis.

 

Valid point. But can you disprove anything I've said?

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

This isn't even close to proof. You are questioning the beginning of everything, and then saying that God did it. You are presenting a hypothesis.

 

But can you disprove anything I've said? Also, if one can acknowledge God is the beginning of everything, that certainly acknowledges He is real.

 

Oops, made a double post. Ignore the first part. I dunno why that posted itself....

[Pistolvania]

Valid point. But can you disprove anything I've said?

When you can disprove the Big Bang theory, which is the widely-accepted answer to the beginning of everything, we can talk about that. 

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

When you can disprove the Big Bang theory, which is the widely-accepted answer to the beginning of everything, we can talk about that.

 

Very well. So if we can't disprove it, and it is widely accepted, then it must be true. Right? Cause a lot of people are Catholic. So it is widely accepted. Therefore, the theory that God is real should also be true.

 

Also, remember that in the big bang theory, I believe an explosion created everything. Explosions dont just "happen". Something, or someone, made it happen. That is God. So it actually affirms him.

[Pistolvania]

Very well. So if we can't disprove it, and it is widely accepted, then it must be true. Right? Cause a lot of people are Catholic. So it is widely accepted. Therefore, the theory that God is real should also be true.

 

Also, remember that in the big bang theory, I believe an explosion created everything. Explosions dont just "happen". Something, or someone, made it happen. That is God. So it actually affirms him.

 

"Very well. So if we can't disprove it, and it is widely accepted, then it must be true. Right? Cause a lot of people are Catholic. So it is widely accepted. Therefore, the theory that God is real should also be true."

 

I assume you understand what I meant? I could have written "scientifically accepted", but science has a tendency to piss off Christians, especially catholics, with experience from my catholic father. God being real also isn't a theory. Please get your terms right.

 

"Also, remember that in the big bang theory, I believe an explosion created everything. Explosions dont just "happen". Something, or someone, made it happen. That is God. So it actually affirms him."

 

Ok, cool. Present your hypothesis to any well-recognized scientists working on this. Maybe you've done an amazing discovery.

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

"Very well. So if we can't disprove it, and it is widely accepted, then it must be true. Right? Cause a lot of people are Catholic. So it is widely accepted. Therefore, the theory that God is real should also be true."

 

I assume you understand what I meant? I could have written "scientifically accepted", but science has a tendency to piss off Christians, especially catholics, with experience from my catholic father. God being real also isn't a theory. Please get your terms right.

 

"Also, remember that in the big bang theory, I believe an explosion created everything. Explosions dont just "happen". Something, or someone, made it happen. That is God. So it actually affirms him."

 

Ok, cool. Present your hypothesis to any well-recognized scientists working on this. Maybe you've done an amazing discovery.

Scientist and Religion work together buddy. There are scientistic theories that piss of Christians, but there are also some who work to forward our understanding. So some scientists would agree with the theory that God was the being who set in motion the Big Bang. Some would not.

 

As far as I've known in my life, God certainly exists. I'm saying that to others, God is a theory. So on the theory that God exists is where I was basing myself off of. I dunno if that makes sense to you or not.

 

Perhap's I haven't lived long enough to understand. But that is what I know at this point so I answered the original questions. There is certainly logical proof that he exists, but on a material plane, I suppose there is often little to prove it.

[Pistolvania]

So some scientists would agree with the theory that God

 

What theory about God?

[Python.]

Alright. As a Catholic Student Learning Philosophy, I will do my best to answer these questions. Please dont persectue for my faith.

Oh...well, they were just examples of questions

But thanks for taking it seriously

[ThatOtherChigga #Mack]

God isn't a man, so your question is invalid.

 

get rekted