Creation is evidence for which God?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Tell me about the research you have done into other religions to substantiate your above claim that the Christian God is the only reported deity to be eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient?

You want me to prove a negative? Wouldn't it be easier for you to provide a single example of another religion reporting such a deity?

@darfius said
You want me to prove a negative? Wouldn't it be easier for you to provide a single example of another religion reporting such a deity?

No, I'm simply asking you to confirm that you have examined what other religions report about the Gods they believe in, in order to discount them having the alleged qualities of your God.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable request.

And as an aside, I do not think even your God can be both omnipotent and perfectly loving. - I'm sure you are already familiar with the argument of a child dying of a terminal illness. Either God cannot intervene or he will not. If he can not he is not all powerful and if he will not he is not perfectly loving. It is not logical that he can be both and allow such a child to suffer.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I pick a flower and say, "Ah, evidence that the Christian God exists."

I then pick a second flower and say, "Ah, evidence that Brahma exists."


Can any religion claim an exclusive link between creation and their particular flavour of the divine?

I think Christianity has the best creation story there is. There are many but no other comes close!

@kellyjay said
I think Christianity has the best creation story there is. There are many but no other comes close!

A story you say?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
No, I'm simply asking you to confirm that you have examined what other religions report about the Gods they believe in, in order to discount them having the alleged qualities of your God.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable request.

And as an aside, I do not think even your God can be both omnipotent and perfectly loving. - I'm sure you are already familiar ...[text shortened]... he is not perfectly loving. It is not logical that he can be both and allow such a child to suffer.

Even if other religions made the claim, there can be only one omnimax individual. That individual is God, whatever He is called or not called by anyone.

God will not circumvent the free will He gave us so that we can be good to make us merely happy. Happiness cannot be sustained until we are good. So while He mourns for the child with cancer, He knows that taking away the child's free will and the free will of those responsible for their cancer would be a worse evil than allowing them to suffer from it with hope for a better future which would not exist without free will.

@darfius said
Even if other religions made the claim, there can be only one omnimax individual. That individual is God, whatever He is called or not called by anyone.

God will not circumvent the free will He gave us so that we can be good to make us merely happy. Happiness cannot be sustained until we are good. So while He mourns for the child with cancer, He knows that taking away t ...[text shortened]... lowing them to suffer from it with hope for a better future which would not exist without free will.

Isnt free will removed by god in the end?

@stellspalfie said
Isnt free will removed by god in the end?

No

@stellspalfie said
Isnt free will removed by god in the end?

Who told you that? Just wondering.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I can't believe the correct answer was given so early in the thread. 😉

Sorry, I'm not a huge fan of forum combat, but sometimes I get roped into it.

This isn't one of those times. 🙂

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

I would be interested for someone to produce for our examination a sacred text on the creation of the world. What I would look for is as CLEARLY stated that the Creator is transcendent to, outside of, and beyond all things and OF that creation.

Here is a chance for someone to produce such statements as - [b]"In the beginning God created the heavens ...[text shortened]... Shut me down somebody! Search your creation cosmologies. I'm out here on a limb now. Go for it.

Surely, all you are saying is that a religion is wrong unless it is the same in its detail and texts as Christianity.

Grampy Bobby used to 'argue' that one of the indicators of a religion being "true" was that it had Jesus as the Son of God in it. i.e. does Hinduism have Jesus as the Son of God in it? No. Well, then, it is not the "true" religion. etc. etc. It was either fatuousness or it was feeble-minded. You decide.

Is your 'argument' that religions that don't have the book of Genesis in them are not "true" because your concept of creation is found described correctly in the book of Genesis and your religion/concept of creation are "true"? If so, aren't you concerned that you might come across as being either fatuous or feeble-minded?

@suzianne said
Sorry, I'm not a huge fan of forum combat, but sometimes I get roped into it.

You are one of RHP's most blatant purveyors of "forum combat". Probably 80% of your posts on this forum are devoted to engaging in it regardless of the content of posts you are replying to or the topics in hand.

@kellyjay said
I think Christianity has the best creation story there is. There are many but no other comes close!

"No other comes close" to what?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
A story you say?

It isn't a theory.
The creation story starts in Genesis and you see what God did.
God creates man, from Adam to Jesus we have a line of people begetting, boring reading, but very important.
You have anything close to that in any form? Written genealogy from the beginning to a few thousand years ago?

@kellyjay said
Written genealogy from the beginning to a few thousand years ago?

Is the "written genealogy" correct?

@kellyjay said
It isn't a theory.
The creation story starts in Genesis and you see what God did.
God creates man, from Adam to Jesus we have a line of people begetting, boring reading, but very important.
You have anything close to that in any form?

You have anything close to that in any form?

"Close to" what?