Please answer this question.

[lily]

What happens if you don't believe that God created life? I don't think he created it, and I don't think he has the right to take away life - and nor do we.

Hi. Well, the purpose of the poll was not to find out who believes and who doesn't... I figured people would specify that on the thread, if they were answering from a purely theoretical standpoint.

Actually, now that I think of it... I suppose I could've added special options for atheists or agnostics that said, "in theory" after the yes or no.

But anyway, you can still answer no, if you choose, and then just explain why you answered that way.

I'm going to hold off on my answer to the question for the time being, as how I phrase it is still in flux.

Why are you asking?

Well, as you can see already by reading the thread - there are some people who disagree that God has the right to take away life as He sees fit. So, I asked the question just to provoke thought and discussion. I think that this ties in to some other interesting (and controversial) topics, that maybe this thread will get into later.

I think if he's a just and loving God no, he shouldn't kill. He may be able to and have the power to but if he doesn't think life sacred why should the people who believe in him?

With great power comes great responsibility and if the 'creator' can't live by that (supposedly lesser human virtue) why should we worship him at all?

Thanks for your thoughts. To be honest, I'm not even sure how to respond to your post. But I guess I'll start by asking you a couple questions. You're an agnostic, right? So, before we go any further.... for the sake of argument, which concept makes more sense to you: A) The creative force behind the universe is transcendent to time... in other words, exists outside of time, or B) Like us humans, the creator is limited to time, in a linear way. If the answer is A, it makes more sense that God is transcendent, then as Snouter said, since God has an entirely different perspective than all of us, and knows infinitely more than you and I do...wouldn't assuming the worst about God without knowing all the facts be a bit presumptuous?

Isn't being able to kill people the best part of being a God to begin with?

Heh, IYAM, no. Not unless your're talking about a malevolent God. And I don't want to get too off-topic, but it's illogical to believe that God is evil. The creator of the universe and all life is also the source of truth - including moral truths. So, if God is the lawgiver when it comes to morality, then it makes no sense to believe that we (limited human beings) could ever be better or more knowledable than God, when it comes to right/wrong... or anything, for that matter.

hypothetically speaking if a god or even the christian god were to exist, it does not have the right to kill as it sees fit, if it has to kill, then it would have to be justified, to everyone's standards not just it's, and even after that, how it did the killing would come into question.

However a truly loving god would not kill, it would not be in it's remit.
It could do it by accident but not on purpose.

A creature that exudes love can not do things that are just not loving, there are much better ways than killing, if it is the designer of all then it would be far more intelligent then you and me thus it would not think the killing part would be the wisest option.

An omnimax(all powerful, all knowing, ever present, all loving) god could change anything without resorting too murder.

Unless of course it is an evil tyrant then it would kill, at a whim.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. There's a lot there to get into, but I think I'll let hadit answer this (if he wants to, of course!) If not, I'll try to get back to this later.

The question presupposes far to much for me.

That's fine if you don't want to answer.

This is a complicated but interesting question. I automatically think of our physical life versus our spiritual life. Let me give it some thought Lily.

Thanks! As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

[TopsyTurvy]

Thanks for your thoughts. To be honest, I'm not even sure how to respond to your post. But I guess I'll start by asking you a couple questions. You're an agnostic, right? So, before we go any further.... for the sake of argument, which concept makes more sense to you: A) The creative force behind the universe is transcendent to time... in other words, exists outside of time, or B) Like us humans, the creator is limited to time, in a linear way. If the answer is A, it makes more sense that God is transcendent, then as Snouter said, since God has an entirely different perspective than all of us, and knows infinitely more than you and I do...wouldn't assuming the worst about God without knowing all the facts be a bit presumptuous?

Of course but I could also ask the exact opposite.

Wouldn't assuming the best about God without knowing all the facts be a bit presumptuous?

I'm also not of the opinion a God who punishes people for not believing in him could live outside of time, or if he does he isn't inherently 'good'.

[pavlos]

The outside of time argument is an impossibility. It is irrational to even bring it up.

Any action, whether by a god or whoever would require the passage of time to be able to complete the action. I.e. it is impossible for anything to occur unless time exists. It is therefore impossible for a god to create time since that would require time to exist to perform such an action.

If there was a point where time did not exist then how could a god proceed from the before condition (no time) to the post condition (time exists) without time existing in the first place?

Any action you claim that God performs involves a before and an after condition, i.e. time has passed. It is not possible for time to be created, time has always existed otherwise we could not be here. In this sense God would be compelled to obey the same laws as humans.

[AlbertJ]

Because some people seem to have a problem with the idea of God choosing to take away life, or allowing it to happen. Based of course on a complete lack of trust in God's judgement and moral authority.

I think people assume judgement is all bad. It's not really. It certainly can be though.

Wouldn't assuming the best about God without knowing all the facts be a bit presumptuous?

No less presumptious than always assuming the worst.

It is completely possible that ordinary, everyday people like you and me and lily can get to know the goodness of God without losing our shit.

A wooden cross is an instrument of torture.

[lily]

Of course but I could also ask the exact opposite.

Wouldn't assuming the best about God without knowing all the facts be a bit presumptuous?

Yes, but it sounds like you're assuming that people just blindly believe that God is good without any valid reasons, or without knowing anything. I can't speak for every believer, but I have a number of reasons for strongly believing that God is good. And as I was saying to taterv, it's illogical to think otherwise. There's no way we could be better or more moral than God. If we were, then WE'D be God.

I'm also not of the opinion a God who punishes people for not believing in him could live outside of time, or if he does he isn't inherently 'good'.

Just because you can't comprehend how God can exist outside of time and how that actually works in the grand scheme of things in conjunction with our free will doesn't mean it can't be. We don't have to fully understand how everything works in order for something to be true.

The outside of time argument is an impossibility. It is irrational to even bring it up.

Any action, whether by a god or whoever would require the passage of time to be able to complete the action. I.e. it is impossible for anything to occur unless time exists. It is therefore impossible for a god to create time since that would require time to exist to perform such an action.

If there was a point where time did not exist then how could a god proceed from the before condition (no time) to the post condition (time exists) without time existing in the first place?

Any action you claim that God performs involves a before and an after condition, i.e. time has passed. It is not possible for time to be created, time has always existed otherwise we could not be here. In this sense God would be compelled to obey the same laws as humans.

There are a number of things wrong with your post, I'm not even sure where to begin. I started to reply, but I just realized, you're doing what you always do. You're turning yet another thread into a thread about God's existence, even when I stated up front in the OP that that is not what this thread is about. Feel free to start another thread, so we don't lose the focus of this one. Since you voted no on this one, either explain why you think that the creator and source of all life wouldn't have the right to take life away.... or, if you don't want to stay focused, as I said, feel free to start a thread of your own. When I have a bit more time later, I'll try to chime in.

[TopsyTurvy]

No less presumptious than always assuming the worst.

This could get circular and repetitive real quick.

[TopsyTurvy]

I was going to reply to you lily but I'm tired and I'm working in the morning. I'm also not sure I could answer your point without offending you, so I won't risk it.

Good night and take care.

[Dreamy]

Does God - the Creator and Giver of all life - have the right to take away life as He sees fit?

Just curious. God is given "rights" by whom?

I think the mistake we humans often make with God is attributing human like qualities to him. He is not one of us.

Also I am closer to Calvinism when sovereignty is discussed. God is absolutely sovereign and yet I do believe our choices have real meaning and we are responsible for those choices.

I had an experience where I believed my death was imminent and all outward signs would lead most to believe the same. I never once thought God's hand was the reason I was going to possibly die. I did all I could to save myself. I made certain choices and decisions in the moment. I never felt God had forsaken me nor did I feel he was directing my death or human salvation.

[9ball8]

As an agnostic, the question is less relevant than "free will".

The most reasonable belief system places full responsibility on humanity. If an evil dictator orders the death of 10 million, it is not the fault of any god, but the fault of millions who failed to stop a psychopath.

We know what is ethical and what is not, by now. But I do appreciate those who claim to be one of "God's children". Unless they claim that condition only for matters completely beyond human control (earthquake, meteor, etc.), they are practically telling me they are immature and unwilling to face human frailty. If there were a God, it would place the burden of bad human behavior squarely on all grown-ups.

[lily]

I was going to reply to you lily but I'm tired and I'm working in the morning. I'm also not sure I could answer your point without offending you, so I won't risk it.

Good night and take care.

I'm babysitting right now so I can't be online for very long anyway. But if you can't argue your position without personal swipes, then how strong is your position? So far this thread has been civil, so I'm sure you can do it.

Just curious. God is given "rights" by whom?

I think the mistake we humans often make with God is attributing human like qualities to him. He is not one of us.

Also I am closer to Calvinism when sovereignty is discussed. God is absolutely sovereign and yet I do believe our choices have real meaning and we are responsible for those choices.

I had an experience where I believed my death was imminent and all outward signs would lead most to believe the same. I never once thought God's hand was the reason I was going to possibly die. I did all I could to save myself. I made certain choices and decisions in the moment. I never felt God had forsaken me nor did I feel he was directing my death or human salvation.

I'm sure you know that my position is that God is sovereign, he isn't 'given rights' by anyone. The question sounds silly to us, but as you can see, there are some here who seem to think that God doesn't have the 'right' to do anything that they don't understand or fully agree with. Dangit, there's a lot more I wanted to say right now but I really do have to go. I need to cook dinner for my nephew and watch him until later. I'll probably be back later tonight.

As an agnostic, the question is less relevant than "free will".

The most reasonable belief system places full responsibility on humanity. If an evil dictator orders the death of 10 million, it is not the fault of any god, but the fault of millions who failed to stop a psychopath.

We know what is ethical and what is not, by now. But I do appreciate those who claim to be one of "God's children". Unless they claim that condition only for matters completely beyond human control (earthquake, meteor, etc.), they are practically telling me they are immature and unwilling to face human frailty. If there were a God, it would place the burden of bad human behavior squarely on all grown-ups.

Sorry, I'll be back later and try to reply then. Hopefully others here will reply too in the meantime.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Does God - the Creator and Giver of all life - have the right to take life away, as He sees fit?

It doesn't really matter whether He has the right or not - howsoever the concept of "rights" applies to God anyhow - God has the power to take away or grant life in any way He sees fit.

I'd think that's one case where 'might makes right' truly says it all.

[pavlos]

The outside of time argument is an impossibility. It is irrational to even bring it up.

Any action, whether by a god or whoever would require the passage of time to be able to complete the action. I.e. it is impossible for anything to occur unless time exists. It is therefore impossible for a god to create time since that would require time to exist to perform such an action.

If there was a point where time did not exist then how could a god proceed from the before condition (no time) to the post condition (time exists) without time existing in the first place?

Any action you claim that God performs involves a before and an after condition, i.e. time has passed. It is not possible for time to be created, time has always existed otherwise we could not be here. In this sense God would be compelled to obey the same laws as humans.

There are a number of things wrong with your post, I'm not even sure where to begin. I started to reply, but I just realized, you're doing what you always do. You're turning yet another thread into a thread about God's existence, even when I stated up front in the OP that that is not what this thread is about. Feel free to start another thread, so we don't lose the focus of this one.

Strawman. It wasn't a question, it was a statement. and it also wasn't a statement as to whether a god exists, it was on topic as you mentioned god being outside time I quote (bolded)

for the sake of argument, which concept makes more sense to you: A) The creative force behind the universe is transcendent to time... in other words, exists outside of time, or B) Like us humans, the creator is limited to time, in a linear way.

I was just stating how it was irrational to even think anything could be outside time, I explained how in the simplest way possible.
I am sick to death of you putting the blame on me for your own misgivings, buck up and be honest.
Oh sorry that's an impossibility you cant your religious.

Since you voted no on this one, either explain why you think that the creator and source of all life wouldn't have the right to take life away.... or, if you don't want to stay focused, as I said, feel free to start a thread of your own. When I have a bit more time later, I'll try to chime in.

I did I made it clear in post #17 here I'll post it up again

hypothetically speaking if a god or even the christian god were to exist, it does not have the right to kill as it sees fit, if it has to kill, then it would have to be justified, to everyone's standards not just it's, and even after that, how it did the killing would come into question.

However a truly loving god would not kill, it would not be in it's remit.
It could do it by accident but not on purpose.

A creature that exudes love can not do things that are just not loving, there are much better ways than killing, if it is the designer of all then it would be far more intelligent then you and me thus it would not think the killing part would be the wisest option.

An omnimax(all powerful, all knowing, ever present, all loving) god could change anything without resorting too murder.

Unless of course it is an evil tyrant then it would kill, at a whim.

If you or lets say humanity was able to create a new sapient being would we have the right to kill it?, now before you say we're not god, or something stupid like that, to the the new life, we created we are god.
When it comes to inanimate objects we have every right to destroy what we create, but when it comes to a life, nothing and I'll repeat that "nothing" has that right.

It just shows that man is morally superior to god.
It is about time you realised that.

[lily]

Strawman. It wasn't a question, it was a statement.

I didn't say it was a question, I merely said, "There are a number of things wrong with your post..."

and it also wasn't a statement as to whether a god exists, it was on topic as you mentioned god being outside time I quote (bolded)

A) That was to Topsy.
B) The only reason I brought that up was to preface the point that God has the bigger picture, that we don't have. It wasn't to argue God's transcendence or God's existence, but merely to ask her - for the sake of argument - to consider that that IF God does indeed have the bigger perspective, and knowledge that we don't have, then it is presumptuous for us to assume the worst, when we don't know all the facts.

So Topsy's and my posts were related to the topic. Then you jumped in to say that a transcendent God can't exist, yadda yadda yadda. So yeah, once again you're wanting to argue your pet topic. That's fine if you want to do that, but as I said, start a new thread so we don't derail this one.

I was just stating how it was irrational to even think anything could be outside time, tis all. I am sick to death of you putting the blame on me for your own misgivings, buck up and be honest.

To be honest, in the past I probably would've quickly got into a debate on things like God's transcendence, or God's existence, etc. (off topic or not) But now I get bored arguing stuff like that... especially with extremely hardcore atheists like you. And as I have said on other threads, God is discerned through the spirit, not our minds/intellect. So for someone like you, who is spiritually dead, it's pointless. No amount of debating will ever get you to believe in God. It could only happen in a completely different way. But as I said, if you're itching to debate those other subjects, go for it. On a new thread.

Oh sorry that's an impossibility you cant your religious.

It's you're, not "your."

And you're showing your obsession again, with inane comments like religious people can't be honest.

I did I made it clear in post #17 here I'll post it up again If you or lets say humanity was able to create a new sapient being would we have the right to kill it?, now before you say we're not god, or something stupid like that, to the the new life, we created we are god.
When it comes to inanimate objects we have every right to destroy what we create, but when it comes to a life, nothing and I'll repeat that "nothing" has that right.

I'm just curious - what is your basis for stating that "nothing has that right."? I'm not disagreeing with you - or agreeing - merely asking you what you're going by.... your own personal standard? Your culture's standard? And I hope you realize, that unless an objective, absolute universal standard exists, then all you're doing is stating your opinion, which can not be more true than anyone else's opinion, if there is no actual absolute moral truth. And if there IS an absolute univeral moral truth, then I'm dying to know how you, as an atheist, will account for that.

It just shows that man is morally superior to god.
It is about time you realised that.

I don't want to be rude here, so I'll keep my thoughts on that statement to myself.

[86Dùde]

I don't understand the self-determination vs. destiny crapola. If god wants to kill sucky people then I don't understand who Bill Clinton, Soros, and Cheney still get to live.

[hadit]

hypothetically speaking if a god or even the christian god were to exist, it does not have the right to kill as it sees fit, if it has to kill, then it would have to be justified, to everyone's standards not just it's, and even after that, how it did the killing would come into question.

Absolutely not. I did not have to justify my actions to my infant children, in part because they could not possibly comprehend why I did what I did. An infinite being is far greater than man's limited comprehension. He does not have to justify anything.

However a truly loving god would not kill, it would not be in it's remit.
It could do it by accident but not on purpose.

On the contrary. An infinite being that has the best interests of all creation in His mind would kill if necessary those who desperately deserve judgement.

A creature that exudes love can not do things that are just not loving, there are much better ways than killing, if it is the designer of all then it would be far more intelligent then you and me thus it would not think the killing part would be the wisest option.

Those ways are only better to your limited human understanding, and totally ignore the results of free choice. Along with choice comes responsibility, and you can only go so far before judgement.

An omnimax(all powerful, all knowing, ever present, all loving) god could change anything without resorting too murder.

If He were to do that, then He would not be allowing for the possibility of free choice. Some things carry with them the penalty of death.

Unless of course it is an evil tyrant then it would kill, at a whim.

A father is not an evil tyrant to his children. You are angry at God because you are not His child and thus you fear Him. It is so sad that you do when it is so simple to avoid that kind of paralyzing fear.

[hadit]

As an agnostic, the question is less relevant than "free will".

The most reasonable belief system places full responsibility on humanity. If an evil dictator orders the death of 10 million, it is not the fault of any god, but the fault of millions who failed to stop a psychopath.

We know what is ethical and what is not, by now. But I do appreciate those who claim to be one of "God's children". Unless they claim that condition only for matters completely beyond human control (earthquake, meteor, etc.), they are practically telling me they are immature and unwilling to face human frailty. If there were a God, it would place the burden of bad human behavior squarely on all grown-ups.

He does.

[TopsyTurvy]

I'm babysitting right now so I can't be online for very long anyway. But if you can't argue your position without personal swipes, then how strong is your position? So far this thread has been civil, so I'm sure you can do it.

I meant offending your faith more than you personally, sorry, what I said was a tad ambiguous.

[hadit]

I don't understand the self-determination vs. destiny crapola. If god wants to kill sucky people then I don't understand who Bill Clinton, Soros, and Cheney still get to live.

Exactly. We DON'T understand why those we personally hate get to live while others don't. That's the whole point. We don't see the whole picture, we can only see a very limited bit of it.

[Shandril105]

Mother Nature is a harsh mistress. She will do whatever she darn well feels like and we get absolutely no say.

[AlbertJ]

Mother Nature is a harsh mistress. She will do whatever she darn well feels like and we get absolutely no say.

She is an utter bitch.

One must rise above nature to deal with her.