God created evil first. Think about it.

Author: RationalMadman

Posts

Total: 77
#31
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7



.
RationalMadman,

YOUR HYPOCRITICAL RUN AWAY QUOTE IN POST #29:  "I do run, I just don't run scared. When I run, it's because the other is not worth my time and energy."

Do you have any sense whatsoever in that you should be embarrassed about your comical quote above? Huh?  I mean, seriously!


1. You RAN AWAY from me in calling you a LIAR in my post #27 because you factually know you are outright guilty as charged, and I thank you for accepting this blatant fact!

2. If you RUN because it is not worth any of your time and energy to TRY and refute me, then WHY did you stick around in your posts 7, 9, 13, 17, 20, 22, and 29 doing just that?! 

The bottom line is the FACT that between your initial post within your comical thread, and now, you DO NOT know in what you are talking about, and because of this fact, you were easily derailed by me and others.  In your drastic grasping for straws, you had to make up entities that were NOT TRUE about my posts to you!  In return, I had to easily show you the FACT that you LIED about my posts, therefore to be ever known on this forum as a BLATANT LIAR! Congratulations!

Take a break, I can't bare watching you post again in making a fool of yourself relative to your blundering and convoluted topic that you don't even know what God concept you are talking about to begin with, okay? Here is a novel idea, next time have a solid premise to work from with peer reviewed and/or substantiated FACTS instead of your  wishful thinking, laughable opinions, and grasping from the air hearsay! Got it?   You’re welcome.

Now, I want you to post once again with unfortunately the term LIAR hanging over you head, so you can have a modicum of crumbs left for you so that you can have the last word, okay?  BEGIN:


.
Topic's author
#32
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,917
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I'm a liar for hire if you aspire to wire your mind to a higher IQ than the one of a mind filled with such ire,
You cannot pinpoint the dire igniting cause of the fire that makes you writhe in agonising rage; so scream and shout it, town crier.
#33
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7


.
RationalMadman,

FAUXLAW'S COMICAL QUOTE TO YOU: "Make it good, because I'm no 6-day creationist."

Yes, by all means, don't forget Fauxlaw's Satanic position of a creation day equals "thousands of years in time!" LOL!  Poor ol' Fauxlaw saw the handwriting on the wall when I gave him a few logical Bible concepts in why his theory would bury him if he continued our discussion in this context a while back. It obviously became so embarrassing for him, that he too had to BAN ME from making him a Receiver in the user name link.  You will learn that Fauxlaw is just another pseudo-christian runway to Jesus' TRUE WORDS within the scriptures!

It is becoming a fact that pseudo-christians in this forum cannot in any way defend their Satanic rewrites of the Bible, therefore, they have to hide in the background to save what face they have left, which in the case of Fauxlaw, he hasn't any left. :(



.
#34
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Show me where it says creation wasn't thousands of years. Probably more. Don't show me Genesis. Who says when God created earth, it was where it is now? Or who says that God's reckoning was time as it is on earth? How long is a "day" on Venus, our closest neighbor, let alone somewhere else? You know, when I build something in my workshop, which does not, like Vegas, even have a clock where the action is, but when the piece is finished, it does not stay there, regardless. I move it to where it can be appreciated. Tell me definitively God did not do that with earth when it was completed. Go ahead. Make it good. I don't buy Adam six thousand years ago, either. In terms of time, you can take your sanctimonious bible interpretation and do whatever you wish with it. I have some suggestions.
Topic's author
#35
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,917
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
He is not a Christian, he is looking at any technicality in Biblical scripture to troll you.
#36
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Ditto on the boring and irriating, if I thought about it much. Thing is, I don't think about it much. Only when that rising, pounding hand rises long enough to start to stink. Doubt is the nemesis of rational thought, the odor of a backwater ditch.
#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

@ fauxlaw,

This argument seems a bit like the chicken and egg question, 

It is nothing like it and there is a perfectly good answer to the Chicken & Egg question; it was the egg.
#38
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
I am talking about god of reality, not that fictional character but the actual god.
And where did you come across this particular god?


If God created evil first, it means that God didn't know how to undo evil without ruining what we are.

If this god was able to create us, then he could just simply scrap his first model and recreate us all over again , perfect like the  biblical god is said to have done. Or is this god not as clever as the biblical god.

And you mentioned nothing about this particular god at all in your OP. Was that so you could just state anything in your defense concerning your thoughts, opinions or theory about this god that only you seem to know;   there by leaving you holding all the cards , so to speak.



It is very difficult to create beings with individuality  and not creating the evil ones among them. The idea being that God ensured there'd be heroes to balance out the villains with a hindsight aspect.

Can you offer any evidence for those claims? Such as what material caused you to have this opinion about a god that only you seem to know.









#39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Stephen

 it was the egg.
Explain your logic. There is no adolescent chicken, yet there is an egg. Tell me how that works. And I suppose there is some unembodied sperm flitting about [which does not survive well in an extended, exposed duration] that happens upon this unembodied egg, and, voila, without a means of gestating nourishment, manages to become a chicken. That's not only NOT logical, it is impossible.
#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

@ fauxlaw,


 it was the egg.

Explain your logic.

Hahhahahahhaha. You have me on block yet ask me to explain myself to you. What a fkn piss taking liberty.

Explain your logic.
My 12 year old  granddaughter worked that one out....... when she was 7 years old.




Topic's author
#41
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,917
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
If the question asks whether the chicken egg or chicken itself came first, the answer depends on semantics.

The reasons that the egg came first, if we remove the semantics of 'chicken egg' is that the chicken evolved inside the egg it came from. The question is one of semantics, since is the egg not laid by a chicken but from which a chicken came to be identified as a chicken egg?



#42
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4


Just be tolerant and respectful of others....There we are, that's my advice....No god required.
Do you feel that first world countries are obligated to give aid to 3rd world nations?

In other words, if the U.S. and Great Britain decided to withdraw humanitarian aid to less fortunate nations, would we be just in doing so? We'd still be tolerant of these nations. We'd still respect these nations. But we just wouldn't give them aid anymore.  Would that be acceptable?
#43
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
An "egg" [not to be confused with an ova] must derive from a single strand of the DNA helix, called RNA, from both male [sperm] and female [ova] chickens, and only occurs after fertilization when the M/F RNA strands re-combine to create a whole, distinct individual. The egg does not just "evolve" from whatever. It's not semantics, it's science.
#44
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Stephen
You wonder why your blocked. Clean up your act, I'll unblock. Profane is the last effort of an argument, and totally fails.
#45
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
You may have read Darwin's On the Origin of Species, but if you read his follow-up, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, it didn't compute. Evolution doesn't happen by selection of traits in a single generation by a single individual. A member of a species, male or female, may have mutation affect its DNA, but the expression [evolution] of that mutation does not occur in that creature's generation, but in its offspring by sex with another of it's species of the opposing sex. The "egg" of the chicken/egg logic is the result of that M/F union, not by the evolution of a single member of the species, M or F. One without the other is not going to create an egg to be the first expression of that species, and the egg will not, of itself, manage it, either, because it would not exist without the prior fertilization of ova and sperm from separate individuals. Darwin said as much. Even by manipulation of colors of flowers, which Darwin's experiments did, required, at some point, the union of stamen and pistil, with the desired manipulated mutation [color change] occurring in the following generation. I'll buy his explanation long before yours makes sense.
#46
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I'm sorry I've swayed the argument off course. This was RM's argument of God creating evil before good.  Lt's get back to it. I'll argue that Jesus [the OT Jehovah], the Good,  was God's first born not just in the flesh, but His first born in the spirit, as well, and that Evil [Lucifer] was a later child. The linkage of Good and Evil is always listed in that order, and there's a reason for that. Consider that the sequence is not alphabetic. There's a reason for that. Think about it, as RM suggests.
Topic's author
#47
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,917
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Lucifer was indeed his second, the first-born was Michael and third-born was Gabriel. Lucifer's original angel name was actually Samael (they all end in that way, such as Uriel, Azrael etc). But I wasn't referring solely to the God of Abrahamic religions.
Topic's author
#48
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,917
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
It is indeed semantics of what the egg is. If the egg has to be the egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first. If the egg is the egg that birthed the first chicken, then the egg came first.
#49
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
An egg is a fertilized organism, meaning a male and female chicken successfully accomplished the re-zipping of their separate RNA sequences. Do not confuse an egg with an ovum. They are separate things. Oa ovum has a single strand of RNA. The sperm has a single strand of RNA. An egg has a double helix of DNA. It is not semantics. It is science.
Topic's author
#50
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,917
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Here is whst you're missing:

Eother we define it as the egg laid by another entity, in which the fetus mutated into a chicken, or we define it as a chicken egg laif by the first chicken.

The default is the former, thus the egg came first.
#51
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Here is what you're missing: There have always been chickens. There have always been humans. There is no beginning of either one, or any other life form. That's what eternity means. Just as in mathematics, you do not have a line that begins at a point and extends in to infinity. That is a ray. A line extends into infinity in both directions; there is no beginning and no end. Mathematics is the language of God. It is consistent and eternal. I know you don't accept that, but that's on you. Sorry for your finite. It's yours
Topic's author
#52
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,917
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh so you are a hardline creationist, as in you don't believe that chickens evolved over time form other birds or bird-like creatures.
#53
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Was Darwin hardline? "...into one form, or into many..." Sounds like he was open to immediate differentiation. To what degree; who knows?
#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@ fauxlaw,

You wonder why your blocked.

No I don't wonder at all.  

. You seemed more bothered that you have blocked me, than I do.  I don't care. It interesting to watch you come groveling to my  own threads and respond to me on others although you have me on block. It clearly shows your hypocrisy and double standards.

Do you not realize how silly that looks.


#55
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

@ fauxlaw,
There have always been chickens.

Wrong again. And this is why you cannot work out the chicken and the egg enigma


You may have read Darwin's On the Origin of Species, but if you read his follow-up, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 

Well we know you haven't read either. If you had, you would know which came first.  And one doesn't have to have read neither  of these books either. My  12 year old granddaughter didn't have to. She worked it out all on here own..... at the age of only 7 years old.

I keep telling you. It was the egg that came before the Chicken. Just let that sink in slowly.
#56
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
So... chickens weren't domesticated from junglefowl?
#57
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,251
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well.

How does this relate to a god creating evil?


Nonetheless an interesting question. Which takes in the whole gamut of sociological issues.

But primarily perhaps questions the concept of society and social responsibility.

Maybe the idea of aiding others that are struggling to survive is actually contrary to our instinctive programming.

Therefore aiding Third World Nations naturally becomes a secondary and unimportant issue, and let's be honest, your average Joe probably never considers the issue at all, as they are  too preoccupied with the day to day necessities and requirements of their own survival.

We think that we are more civilised, and we might try to be more civilised, but at the end of the day when our own success or failure becomes an issue, do we not become the same instinct driven organisms that we ever were?

What do you think?
#58
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Consider it this way: humans are expressed in a variety of physical traits. We are a marvelously varied breed that all comprise Homo sapiens, but all of us are Homo sapiens, derived, so we are told, from a single pair of parents whose visible expression was not the varied expressions. Just so, chickens are in the mix of expressions comprised in junglefowl. Therefore, chickens have always been, even if not expressed physically. That's what natural selection is all about.
#59
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
It's unlikely that a true atheist would care about such things.

A true atheist would say that good and evil are simply variable human concepts.
How can a true atheist determine anything is moral? Is it not all personal taste, a like, a preference? If so, what makes what a society like Nazi Germany or North Korea any worse or better than any other society? If it is not worse, just personal preference, why judge it as worse? It would be nothing more than something you like or dislike.

As an atheist, do you get a moral "better" or "right" out of what is? If there is no ultimate standard or measure why should I believe the one you believe is good or right? 

Even some deists might come to the same conclusion.

Various deists might consider good and evil differently...This would largely depend upon where when and how they were formatively conditioned.

Some Christian deists might say that God created us and just left us to get on with things....This would seem pretty logical, as this is what we actually do.....So if I "think about it" and if I was less sceptical of fantastical creation hypotheses,  I would probably concur with this logical Christian approach.
Even if Christians do believe God wound up the world and left it, that is not biblical teaching. The Bible writings say God revealed, God spoke to humanity and human beings recorded the transaction that took place. 

Just be tolerant and respectful of others....There we are, that's my advice....No god required.

Why is your advice necessary for me to believe as anything other than nonsense? If it is not a necessary or self-evident truth, what is the point in my believing you? 

To tolerate evil is wickedness. How do you determine evil? Tolerance without justice is a travesty. How do you get justice? Tolerance suggests we allow others to have beliefs that we do not agree with, or believe to be the case, or are contrary to our beliefs. Tolerance should go so far and no further.

I can tolerate that you have a right to believe what is wrong. That is your prerogative. But, once what you do is evil, like torturing innocent human beings, or burning down police precincts, looting, robbing, it should be intolerant and wrong, not acceptable. But what if your concept of justice is different than mine? Who then has a justified true belief or is right to what is the case? Can you say there is a truth to morality (the moral "best" to compare better and good against) or is it all relative and shifting?
#60
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
You're thinking about evolution linearly. That is inaccurate in the fact that it suggests that we came from ancestor species, as demonstrated in the pictures of the evolution of man that you no doubt have seen. In reality, chickens diverged from a common ancestor (to be specific, multiple ancestors) with whom they can no longer reliably produce fertile offspring. Thus, the ancestors cannot be considered chickens.