Topic: Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real

[theANdROId]

I don't understand why omnipotence and omniscience have to contradict themselves.  Why would God do something contrary to His character?

I mean...the big rock thing...If God is omnipotent, why make a "rock" He can't move, thereby making Himself no longer omnipotent?  That wouldn't make any sense.

And does knowing the future have to mess up free will?  So God knows what's gonna happen in the future...that doesn't change the fact that I don't, and still have choices to make.

[theplottwist]

I reaaaaaaaaally don't want to discuss this further, so this is possibly my last reply;

I don't understand why omnipotence and omniscience have to contradict themselves.  Why would God do something contrary to His character?

I mean...the big rock thing...If God is omnipotent, why make a "rock" He can't move, thereby making Himself no longer omnipotent?  That wouldn't make any sense.

It's not about "wanting to", but about "being able to". Being able to not move the rock would show that he's not omnipotent, and not "make him not omnipotent". If he does indeed move the rock, then this would show that he was unable to create a rock truly umovable, which also challenges omnipotency.

This argument of "wanting to" equates a magician telling you he can do anything, and right after you challenge him to do something that would put his power in question, and from which he could arise victorious, he dismisses it by "But why I would do that?". Why? To prove your omnipotency, of course. The mere fact that you (not YOU The Android, but as a general) have to think on a "why" already shows that there's something wrong.

There is something else here: What is the "character of God"? Saying that he's omnipotent without demonstrating it, and asking you to believe it? On what grounds?

It's like a cop: He may not want to shoot you, but he SURE AS HELL can shoot you, independent of "wanting or not". He has a gun, he has the sights and he has the skill. This is all that matters.

I'm not asking you if you want, I'm asking if you can. Also, this is one principle of the scientific method: Can't show it because "why"? Then you have no evidence, and I have no "why" to believe you.

Besides this all, there is one last problem: I can simply ask "Could He create a rock that He can't lift and THEN lift it?". If he "doesn't want to", then he's not omnipotent, if he "wants to" and succeeds, then the rock was not truly unmovable.

And does knowing the future have to mess up free will?  So God knows what's gonna happen in the future...that doesn't change the fact that I don't, and still have choices to make.

But he still knows what your choices will be, and you'll still be condemned (if you did wrong) or saved (if you did right) based on what He sees on your future, without you being able to avoid it.

You have no say on the matter, and you have no way to change your destiny when He already knows exactly how you'll pan out. You were born to be damned or saved, and He already knows exactly how. You may think that you're "deciding", but in fact the decisions were made before you were even born. You have no option but to follow His vision to his ultimate plan for you (Be it damnation or salvation).

Which makes "creating us" a pretty silly thing, considering that everything has already been decided and there is no reason for us to undergo the illusion of choice.

Think of it as a book: You bough this book yesterday, and you're reading it. No matter the fact that you don't know the outcome of the story, the author already wrote it, and you will end up exactly as he wanted. You can't "write your own pages", it's not a blank book.

Now, if you're somehow able to change your future, this challenges His omniscience, since he can't predict what you'll do next.

Dudes, for the LOVE of Dracula, I'm trying to be as civil as possible. I don't want anyone to be offended. If I offended you somehow, I'm sorry and I'm shutting up.

[theANdROId]

I doubt you'll offend me, so no worries there.  I was hesitant to question anyway because I just don't like to argue.  Most of my family (immediate and extended) claim Christianity, and many of them like to get into heated debates on all the most controversial topics...I generally just avoid them.  I may not mind a civil discussion about "the issues" or what one believes, but I don't care to bash anyone over the head, which my family just about does! ("In love" I'm sure...none of us dislike any others as far as I know...but the arguments get too intense for me.)
I do believe in the God of the bible, His "omni-" characteristics and all, but I don't feel the need to ever "justify" or "defend" my choice to follow that religion over any other...it is my freedom to believe, and nobody has to agree with me on it, right? :-)  Others have that same right.

[PFG9000]

I think that Judeo-Christian religion and science do not contradict each other if you treat them metaphorically. I heard that religious people who believe in evolution would argue that the fact evolution took billions of years does not contradict the argument in Genesis that the world and all life on it was created in six days, because "One day for God are many years for man".

That's the classic argument by those who believe the creation account in the bible is a metaphor.  But the description of each day in the creation account ends with, "and there was evening, and there was morning - the first day" (or the second day, or the third day, etc...you get the idea).  It's a pretty huge stretch to make that language a metaphor.

I've said it here before, but it's worth mentioning again:  For the world to be created, it must have had the appearance of an aged world.  Hypothetically, if you were to cut down a tree on the sixth day, wouldn't you expect to find rings inside the trunk?  But that tree is only three days old!  And if you had the means to analyze the soil on the sixth day, wouldn't you find that it was made up of decayed plant and animal matter?  But it's only a few days old, and nothing has died yet, much less decayed.  In order for the world to be self-sustaining, it must have the appearance of being really really old.  So if we're faced with mountains of scientific evidence of evolution, indicating that the world is billions of years old, we can still believe in creation.

It all comes down to faith anyway.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

"Evening" and "Morning" can be metaphors as well, and could stand for eras.
Just sayin'.

Also, I'm Agnostic so I have no say here or there on the matters.  I was raised Roman Catholic and was confirmed, but then parted with that religion.

[crisis]