I do believe in God. But I don't believe God created the world we live in. It doesn't look like the kind of place an all-good person would create. But Christians typically do believe that God created the world. Why? — Bartricks
If you subscribe to that hyperbole, your conundrum is intractable and impervious to reason.God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. Those are the essential attributes of God — Bartricks
Is the choice really is between the absolute acceptance of that omni-doctrine and a peach? OK then I'm a berk, because both appear silly to me.(don't be tedious and question that - if you want to use the word 'God' to refer to a peach, that's fine, but you're just a berk)
The commitment of Christians is not in a definition; it's in the acceptance of Jesus as their redeemer. A cornerstone of the doctrine is believing that story in the foundational book that starts "In the beginning...", which also enables the same God to be King of Heaven, which is important to Christianity wih it afterlife myth. But they do a lot of interpreting, ignoring and cherry-picking between that and the Ascension.So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world. — Bartricks
Christians believe their god created the world, because the Sumerian creation myth is in a book that was written down by Hebrews long after they picked up the oral tradition. Meanwhile, the Christians' founding figurehead changed the whole concept and identity of the Hebrew god. So they have the Saviour figure at the center of their religion, but His role depends on the God figure that's supposed to have engendered Him, which is a different person from the Jehovah of the OT. But the compilers of the Bible that modern Christians use as their source and final authority lived in Roman Europe 300 years later just lumped all the stories in together, regardless of their origins, ages and contradictions. So the Christians are confused and conflicted and all the time at odds with one another over doctrine. — Vera Mont
Is the choice really is between the absolute acceptance of that omni-doctrine and a peach? OK then I'm a berk, because both appear silly to me. — Vera Mont
he commitment of Christians is not in a definition; it's in the acceptance of Jesus as their redeemer. A cornerstone of the doctrine is believing that story in the foundational book that starts "In the beginning...", which also enables the same God to be King of Heaven, which is important to Christianity wih it afterlife myth. But they do a lot of interpreting, ignoring and cherry-picking between that and the Ascension.
They don't need to 'square the book' with the omni-God. They just need faith and short memories. — Vera Mont
Mostly, like children, many "believe" the ancient fairytale "God created the world" is literally true due to their incorrigible scientific illiteracy and superstitious gullibility. And for once we agree: this world is conspicuously inconsistent with any notion of "an all-good, all-loving creator God".Christians typically do believe that God created the world. Why? — Bartricks
Well, why do you not believe that God created the world? What justification do you have for this belief? — Bitter Crank
A God-Creator 'works' because we seem to require a beginning to everything, somehow. Big Bang or Fiat Lux. — Bitter Crank
The more we talk about the nature of God; what God did or did not do; what God is or is not like, etc. the deeper into the indefensible we get. Our claims about God are indefensible because we can't know God. In my opinion (talk about hubris!) God (the Father) is above and beyond our knowing. God (the Son) is the knowable person of God. — Bitter Crank
If God wants us to know what he is like, then he can do that. And he has — Bartricks
Note, I am not interested in a psychological or sociological or historical explanation of why it is that Christians typically believe God created the world. — Bartricks
Really. — Bitter Crank
It's nice to have the definitive definition of God. It's nice to have the last word on all matters theological. But it's a teensy bit odd to do that and then come with that burden of proof thingie at other people. It's almost like you were attacking John Cleese with a banana.It's true by definition. — Bartricks
I am interested in whether there is any good philosophical reason for them to do so. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.