What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

Yes I know there is this argument that free will was some kind of imperfection. I can't see it that way. Free will is necessary to created perfection. Creating beings who were unable to rebel would be my idea of imperfection.

Even God cannot make a round square. If you're free, you're free to do evil as well as good. It comes with the territory.

Free willed beings are necessary to perfection. I can't see that automatons who couldn't reject God would be a good thing at all.

Hah! Quite silly of me, well spottedYou're a smart guy, Dan. Don't tell anybody I said so though.

We're glad you decided to join us. At the end of this message you'll find some links to threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.Again, welcome to EvC.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-13-2006 10:10 AM

---

I fail to see how anything is necessary to God.We are the most destructive, evil and selfish species on the planet. I find it hard to swallow, that God could create us, when he could foresee the mass atrocities we have partaken in.Yet look at nature. It is indifferent, and is based on killing or being killed, and always has been. Don't tell me that Trex was a cud chewer.What I do know is that it's much more of a good thing, if God had peaceful robots, rather than creating the bazillion slaughtered of war as a result of human evil.In this regard, I fail to understand GenesisGod and struggle to believe he would be intelligent enough to be the creator of this universe.

Your response is not addressing the point of my post. I was saying that the creation we live in may just be the perfection that the God of the Bible intended. He prepared for the salvation of mankind from before He made creation. So how can you maintain that there is no God based on your value system's specification of what is "perfect" or "good". Since you didn't create it, you are in no position to judge the level of "perfection" or "goodness" of God's creation. Additionally, you aren't privy to all of His details of His Plan so you can't judge His "goodness" based on observations of how He designed creation.

Hi, Faith.

quote:

---

...but at least recognized as logical propositions and not regarded as lacking sense as you all read it.

---

No one is (or at least I am not) saying that robinrohan's premises are lacking sense. I have been saying that there is no a priori reason to accept them as given. The negations of robinrohan's premises equally make sense, and, in fact, to my subjective judgement make more sense.-

quote:

---

I don't see how communication is even possible any more.

---

Well, it is nice of you that you continue to try.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

It depends upon how you want to define the nature/abilities of your Creator.

ith Why would god allow a serpent into eden to tempt the humans who were already obeying the command not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil? They did this in spite of the fact that before eating of the fruit they were incapable of knowing the consequences of eating the fruit. I say this since it is a sin to disobey god and a sin is an evil act. Thus,before eating of the fruit that allowed them to discern good from evil,they could not be aware that it was an evil act.God works in mysterious ways. LOL

quote:

---

Now this God has to be perfect....

---

You see, I think this is where it all goes wrong. You still have not told us what you mean by "perfect". I am assuming you are mean something similar to the classical Greek notion of a "perfect being", but it is hard to tell -- especially since I can read into your post the contemporary value-judgemental meaning.At any rate, I suspect that by "perfect" you mean some (as yet undetermined) arbitrarily chosen set of attributes that you have decided the creator of the universe must have. My guess is that some of the attributes are meaningless since they involve completely subjective value judgements, and they all are arbitrarily assigned to the creator who, if she actually exists, may not necessarily possess any of those attributes.In other words, your argument is suspiciously like the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God in that you are trying to impose your own chosen definitions as actual fact, and setting the definitions up in such a way that they are automatically self-contradictory, thereby allegedly disproving what you want to disprove.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

If God is perfect then everything He is and does is perfect. He couldn't create an imperfect world, by definition.

---

So, we have finally found something that God cannot do.This must mean that God is NOT all-powerful.

quote:

---

It disproves the general theistic God--the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God of Western tradition.

​

And that's the only God worth any serious consideration.

---

Why is it the only God worth serious consideration?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-13-2006 11:39 AM

There are many many things that God cannot do and yet be all-powerful. He can't commit evil, He can't contradict Himself or violate His own nature. There never has been a question for people who know anything at all about God.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-13-2006 12:06 PM

And, so, you're contending that there is absolutely no way evolution could represent some form of justice?