Summations Only

None of those things are caused by God creating the earth. The earth will support 7 billion people who don't have to go to war with each other or kill each other.The alternative, as I see it is a world without human beings at all.

Life evolved on this planet. Evolution happens because there is a competition for resources. That means a world with human life and no strife is impossible. That could only be attained if we were actually specially created in the way Creationists expect.Not having or allowing evolution would be a disservice.

1) Who says such a thing is even possible?2) Men do evil and it is impossible to create humans with free will where some of them won't do the wrong thing. Also, motivation from pure motives is not the only way to create progress.

Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Not without programming you in such a way, which I contend does not leave you with free will. How many of what we seem to universally find repulsive is not socially learned? How much of what is left is not a product of evolution?In particular, not eating dirt is a learned response. People put all kinds of things in their mouths (penises, cigars, yogurt without fruit) that I would find repulsive to try.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yet there is apparently a bit more to Trinity doctrine than forced monotheism. What I find most intriguing (i.e. as silly) about the doctrine is the use of it to designated other followers of Christ as non-Christians.In trying to track down and understand the doctrine, I came across a controversy over the fact that evangelist T.D. Jakes embraced held a non-traditional view of the Trinity.While I am able to the distinction between Jakes old view, which he has now renounced and the traditional view, it's a lot more difficult to convince me that the difference is anything Jesus spoke about.According to almost all evangelistic fundies, people like T.D. Jakes with his reformed view is a heretic despite the fact that they agree with 99.44% of everything he says. Of course those same people invariably believe the earth is 6000 years old.

Nothing particularly strange with that, but what you imagine is definitely not the Trinity doctrine. It is close to the Oneness doctrine embraced by the United Pentecostal Church. As best as I can tell, most fundies would consider that belief heretical.Oneness Pentecostalism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Oneness Pentecostalism derives its distinctive name from its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the Oneness doctrine.[2] This doctrine states that there is one God, a singular divine person, who manifests himself in many ways, including as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (a.k.a. Holy Spirit). This stands in sharp contrast to the doctrine of three distinct and eternal "persons" posited by Trinitarian theology. Oneness believers baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, commonly referred to as Jesus-name baptism, rather than using the Trinitarian formula.

---

Exactly. But most Christians are not quite so literal about the word omnipotent. Even the verse you quoted from the Bible described something rare but not logically impossible. Christians who call God omnipotent aren't looking for God to make an invisible, shining, white opaque object that absorbs all light. And the people telling me that I should hold God responsible for the fact that our sun only has a few billion years worth of hydrogen are invariably atheists.

Let me suggest that your position is a bit silly. We agree that the entire idea of omnipotence, where that word includes being able to perform logical inconsistencies is silly. But then you go on to say that God not having a silly trait is also silly.God cannot control the will of a being and yet claim that the being has free will. Yet God could still exert such control. That's no limitation at all.

If the claim is actually empty, yes.

Testing may not be possible. But hypothetically speaking, the way I would evaluate such claims would be along the following lines.1) does the rational given for restraint make sense?
2) has the rule of restraint ever been broken?
3) can I see a downside of not practicing restraint?
4) is the restraint part of a logical package that seems consistent?
5) is the constraint consistent with my view of God's nature.I'm not convinced that God is the least bit interested in micromanaging minutiae on earth. Being the creator of the solar system and even of life itself does not imply any such ability. There are of course those who insist on a God designs every butterfly and snowflake and maintains the planets in their orbits.But more importantly, I don't see an obligation on God's part to step in and save us from ourselves. I find it completely curious that non-believers insist on such an obligation.

Yes they do. But of course normally in a contract situation we would expect that the parties bind themselves only after making a promise. They are not obligated to enter a contract. I cannot write a U owe Me, and expect you to pay it.

Curiously enough, that's not the kind of promise people are talking about here, because they cannot point to people who should be in heaven but are not. People are complaining that bad things exist in the world.

No, the mentions of the God the Father have not escaped me. It may surprise you, but I do read the Bible. My wife and I discuss it, and argue about it frequently. I find your statement a bit condescending, but not so much as to be offensive.The obligation parents have to children is simply to rear them properly. My oldest child is 23. I love him, of course. But what is my current obligation to him now?Besides that, the Bible was written by men. Men err.As a final statement, let me suggest that given that God did not birth any of us, the use of 'Father' to describe a relationship to God is pure metaphor. Arguments based on metaphor are extremely dangerous. In actuality, God owes us very little. Perhaps he owes it to the universe to keep us from screwing up anything other than our little corner, but given the distances to other places, and special relativity, that seems to be taken care of.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There are no proofs. If that is true, it is only because I've taken the time to think about the issue. I assure you that it is generally easy to find confusion and inconsistencies in a believers view of God.