Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[Dutch Union of Americana]

If he created it, he is not Omnibenevolent.

How does lust take away from benevolence?

If you want to make that argument, use cancer.

According to Christians, lust is a sin. Im just disproving there own religion by using their own religion.

[Conscentia]

If he created it, he is not Omnibenevolent.

How does creating lust take away from benevolence?
If you want to make that argument, use cancer.

Read the conversation.

[Zottistan]

How does lust take away from benevolence?

If you want to make that argument, use cancer.

According to Christians, lust is a sin. Im just disproving there own religion by using their own religion.

You're not disproving their religion, just a very small part of it. All you're really showing is that God wants us to be lusty.

[Conscentia]

There you go, now you have an argument that actually makes sense: if God created sin and the capacity for sin then how can he be omni-benevolent?

Ah, whatever. Another problem I have with Christianity and Creationists is this: If god can do anything, why didnt he stop Adam and Eve from eating the Forbidden Fruit? He could've taken steps to prevent it.

Indeed. He could have put the tree up a mountain in a crater with tall steep edges or something. Made the snake obedient and mute also.

According to Christians, lust is a sin. Im just disproving there own religion by using their own religion.

You're not disproving their religion, just a very small part of it. All you're really showing is that God wants us to be lusty.

By demonstrating that God is not omnibenevolent, he would demonstrate a logical flaw in the concept itself & thus discredit the idea (at least partially).

[Zottistan]

You're not disproving their religion, just a very small part of it. All you're really showing is that God wants us to be lusty.

By demonstrating that God is not omnibenevolent, he would demonstrate a logical flaw in the concept itself & thus discredit the idea (at least partially).

He hasn't demonstrated that, though. He's demonstrated that God created lust. This could mean He is not omnibenevolent, but it could equally mean that God has no problem with lust and that lust isn't a sin, which is only a very minor flaw.

[Conscentia]

By demonstrating that God is not omnibenevolent, he would demonstrate a logical flaw in the concept itself & thus discredit the idea (at least partially).

He hasn't demonstrated that, though. He's demonstrated that God created lust. This could mean He is not omnibenevolent,

The argument is that a benevolent God would not have created sin.

but it could equally mean that God has no problem with lust and that lust isn't a sin, which is only a very minor flaw.

His argument was directed at the Christians who believe that lust is a sin.

The conversation was dealt with. Why don't you just read over it?

[Zottistan]

He hasn't demonstrated that, though. He's demonstrated that God created lust. This could mean He is not omnibenevolent,

The argument is that a benevolent God would not have created sin.

but it could equally mean that God has no problem with lust and that lust isn't a sin, which is only a very minor flaw.

His argument was directed at the Christians who believe that lust is a sin.
The conversation was dealt with. Why don't you just read over it?

Ah, ok. Sorry.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

Ah, whatever. Another problem I have with Christianity and Creationists is this: If god can do anything, why didnt he stop Adam and Eve from eating the Forbidden Fruit? He could've taken steps to prevent it.

Indeed. He could have put the tree up a mountain in a crater with tall steep edges or something. Made the snake obedient and mute also.

You're not disproving their religion, just a very small part of it. All you're really showing is that God wants us to be lusty.

By demonstrating that God is not omnibenevolent, he would demonstrate a logical flaw in the concept itself & thus discredit the idea (at least partially).

He could've made the plants thorny, disgusting fruit, where they couldn't be reached, and not in the center of the Garden of Eden! Also, he could've just not made it!

[Conscentia]

Indeed. He could have put the tree up a mountain in a crater with tall steep edges or something. Made the snake obedient and mute also.


By demonstrating that God is not omnibenevolent, he would demonstrate a logical flaw in the concept itself & thus discredit the idea (at least partially).

He could've made the plants thorny, disgusting fruit, where they couldn't be reached, and not in the center of the Garden of Eden! Also, he could've just not made it!

It was supposed to paradise.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

He could've made the plants thorny, disgusting fruit, where they couldn't be reached, and not in the center of the Garden of Eden! Also, he could've just not made it!

It was supposed to paradise.

Okay, but put it somewhere else you idiot!

[Blasveck]

Ah, whatever. Another problem I have with Christianity and Creationists is this: If god can do anything, why didnt he stop Adam and Eve from eating the Forbidden Fruit? He could've taken steps to prevent it.

Indeed. He could have put the tree up a mountain in a crater with tall steep edges or something. Made the snake obedient and mute also.

You're not disproving their religion, just a very small part of it. All you're really showing is that God wants us to be lusty.

By demonstrating that God is not omnibenevolent, he would demonstrate a logical flaw in the concept itself & thus discredit the idea (at least partially).

I'm pretty sure the theist would just argue that God wanted Adam and Eve to have free will concerning the whole 'Forbidden Fruit' deal.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

Indeed. He could have put the tree up a mountain in a crater with tall steep edges or something. Made the snake obedient and mute also.



I'm pretty sure the theist would just argue that God wanted Adam and Eve to have free will concerning the whole 'Forbidden Fruit' deal.
By demonstrating that God is not omnibenevolent, he would demonstrate a logical flaw in the concept itself & thus discredit the idea (at least partially).

Whoops. Missed that part.

[Shaggai]

Indeed. He could have put the tree up a mountain in a crater with tall steep edges or something. Made the snake obedient and mute also.



By demonstrating that God is not omnibenevolent, he would demonstrate a logical flaw in the concept itself & thus discredit the idea (at least partially).

I'm pretty sure the theist would just argue that God wanted Adam and Eve to have free will concerning the whole 'Forbidden Fruit' deal.

See, I think the whole sin there wasn't eating the fruit, it was trying to hide it from God. I could be wrong though.

[Conscentia]

It was supposed to paradise.

Okay, but put it somewhere else you idiot!

That flame was simply unnecessary.

I'm pretty sure the theist would just argue that God wanted Adam and Eve to have free will concerning the whole 'Forbidden Fruit' deal.

He is omniscient so he would know their decision. He would know that the talking snake would influence them, and thus could have destroyed the snake, or made it mute & obedient.

See, I think the whole sin there wasn't eating the fruit, it was trying to hide it from God. I could be wrong though.

He commanded them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The sin was disobedience.

[Salandriagado]

Faith is a form of spirituality. Not everyone needs faith to satisfy their spirituality.

Faith & hope are the foundation of life. Without them there is no spirituality. Spirituality is empowerment of Spirit which is creates faith and hope. If there no faith there is no spiritual benefit. No one can help a hopeless person. One has to find hope and faith within self to grow spiritually.

Every single part of this post is garbage.

[Dutch Union of Americana]

Okay, but put it somewhere else you idiot!

That flame was simply unnecessary.

I'm pretty sure the theist would just argue that God wanted Adam and Eve to have free will concerning the whole 'Forbidden Fruit' deal.

He is omniscient so he would know their decision. He would know that the talking snake would influence them, and thus could have destroyed the snake, or made it mute & obedient.

See, I think the whole sin there wasn't eating the fruit, it was trying to hide it from God. I could be wrong though.

He commanded them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The sin was disobedience.

I was talking about god, realized it seemed like I was insulting you, so sorry.

[Shaggai]

Okay, but put it somewhere else you idiot!

That flame was simply unnecessary.

I'm pretty sure the theist would just argue that God wanted Adam and Eve to have free will concerning the whole 'Forbidden Fruit' deal.

He is omniscient so he would know their decision. He would know that the talking snake would influence them, and thus could have destroyed the snake, or made it mute & obedient.

See, I think the whole sin there wasn't eating the fruit, it was trying to hide it from God. I could be wrong though.

He commanded them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The sin was disobedience.

You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

Okay, so it could be interpreted that he did command them not to, but it seems more like a warning than an order to me. That's just me though.

[Farnhamia]

That flame was simply unnecessary.


He is omniscient so he would know their decision. He would know that the talking snake would influence them, and thus could have destroyed the snake, or made it mute & obedient.


He commanded them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The sin was disobedience.

You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

Okay, so it could be interpreted that he did command them not to, but it seems more like a warning than an order to me. That's just me though.

One would think that even a suggestion from the being who created you would be taken seriously.

[Galloism]

Okay, so it could be interpreted that he did command them not to, but it seems more like a warning than an order to me. That's just me though.

One would think that even a suggestion from the being who created you would be taken seriously.

I'd like to introduce you to all the teenagers in the world.

[Conscentia]

That flame was simply unnecessary.


He is omniscient so he would know their decision. He would know that the talking snake would influence them, and thus could have destroyed the snake, or made it mute & obedient.


He commanded them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The sin was disobedience.

You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

Okay, so it could be interpreted that he did command them not to, but it seems more like a warning than an order to me. That's just me though.

But it's God who makes them die by making them mortal as punishment for disobedience.

[Farnhamia]

One would think that even a suggestion from the being who created you would be taken seriously.

I'd like to introduce you to all the teenagers in the world.

Ha, yes, well, perhaps Adam and Eve were the world's first teenagers. Yahweh should have used reverse psychology. "Oh, and did I mention that thou shalt eat of the Tree of Knowledge? Really, it's good for you, lots of fiber, vitamins, minerals." They'd have laughed at the Serpent so hard he'd have tied himself in knots.

[Pritsapidoulas]

Chill out. Who cares. You can't confirm it or reject it. If his son still lived..... Wait.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Chill out. Who cares. You can't confirm it or reject it. If his son still lived..... Wait.

Eh, I don't think he exist but I don't know, and I really don't care to know.

[Conscentia]

Chill out. Who cares.

If you don't care, why did you post?

You can't confirm it or reject it. [...]

Many who've posted here would dispute that.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Chill out. Who cares.

If you don't care, why did you post?

You can't confirm it or reject it. [...]

Many who've posted here would dispute that.

Eh, doesn't matter in the end, the idea that the Christian god is more legit than any other Earth deity, let alone what lies out in space makes his existence low.