Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Is there such a thing as God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The actual "Dead Sea Scrolls" do contain more than just what was written in the bible, since some of the scrolls contain commentary regarding passages of scripture, and other laws, and writings of the period. However where there is passages of scripture, there is no additions or deletions. They contain bible books "as-is." Of course I'm certainly no expert in what's available in totality of all the particular scrolls, so I can't really comment if there is a commentary from a writer of that period of time (around 900 BCE) concerning a particular scripture. All I'm saying is that where the scriptural passages are, in those scrolls, they are complete, without additions, and subtractions, and that the style of writing and syntax of the words is virtually identical to how it is shown in current translations.
 
I suspect I should have been more specific. easier to be shot down that way (which is a good thing)

I believe that of all the dead sea scroll texts that could be considered as religious writings not all are included in the bible and also that within that set of dead sea scrolls there are inconsistencies.
 
@P A's post#355 The whole point of the Gospels having a different 'view' on the same set of events displays a sense of inconsitancy. I'm in the middle of moving so all my books are packaged away. Once I get settled I'll point out some slight contradictions in the gospels that could not possibly be differnt points of 'view'.

Question: Weren't the dead-sea scrolls discovered somewhere around 1947 and 1948 and when discovered were in such a piecemeal sort of a state and that a bunch of collectors and researchers bought a lot of the fragments resulting in what he have to work with is incomplete?

I do believe in God I just don't believe in the biblical account or view of God since it makes God seem too human, superhuman yes but human nonetheless.
 
Aristotle posited that either the universe was always here or else it was created. If it were always here, that would break some central tenets with science as we know it (except for Hawking and his nutty theories about trans-dimensional existence). Thus, Aristotle, though brilliant, was biased towards what he knew. The very idea that things come to be rather than "always are" was anathema to Aristotle, which is why he came to his conclusions. Today, we understand much more and can see the evidence of the origin of the universe. All of this points surely to God, as Aristotle knew (and Hawking wrestles with).
 
Surely points to god?

If all this evidence surely pointed to God, why am I still taking philosophy of religion or intro to religion in my classes!?

Apparently the problem has been solves.
 
Ryan:

The conclusion is based on both Aristotle and Maimonides, the former having been forced into his own belief by his personal qualms, the latter having been formed from his hero (Aristotle) and the great brilliance of Maimonides in dissecting the various Arabic, Greek, and Indian cosmologies. True, Maimonides finally leans upon his own beliefs, but you ought to read "Guide for the Perplexed" for the rationales.

As far as college courses go, what can I say? There are colleges which are rooted in God alone (yeshivas, Christian colleges), those which are anti-God (I won't name names), and those which simply offer courses and allow for the student to come to his or her own conclusion. Academics is terrific, but the basis for academics ought to always be questioned, whether it be a liberal or conservative agenda.

That said, a Creator can be proven mathematically (not ontologically). For if the choice is between Creator and no Creator, the odds are so in God's favor it is not able to be challenged. It is like believing that your chances are better at winning the lottery than winning a coin flip. This can be shown easily and within five minutes, and the only disagreement would be from those with preexisting interests in disbelief.

I will say also that a Creator can proven scientifically, as a matter of both Occam's Razor and logical duty (in the tradition of Sherlock Holmes). It will take a rejection of hypothesis and conclusion (of the scientific kind) to overlook the obvious.

All of this is before we examine the human condition, the theory of faith, the Taoist view of God, the yin/yang, and other ideas, all of which lends towards belief.

Then comes the supernatural and whether we attest to it or not. In particular, I point to prophecies (including omens and dreams), ghosts, and near-death experiences. Are these real or not? The evidence points irresistibly to the positive, though James Randi would heartily take me to task.

Finally, we come to a dilemma, which is that there are probably very few atheists in the world. What I mean is, that most who say they are "atheists" are actually "anti-theists." Instead of having no interest in God, they are against God. They ask questions which point to the existence of God, but question motives, ending in conclusions that "God is psychotic" or "God is mean." These statements do not disprove God. They only show that the sensibilities of men are insulted by the authority of a Creator. True atheists exist, of course, but they are not vocal, for they have no interest in disparaging religion. If I am asexual, does that mean I insult those who have sex? Of course not. If I am amoral, do I care if someone is moral? Not really, if they are minding their own business, because "amoral" is not truly "immoral."

Well, there is an overview from this side of the keyboard.
 
@KingGengar's post#366 Well put post imo. I agree statistically or in probability or as you say mathematically the Universe could be seen as a Creation of design with an entity that has within iteslf the ability to produce and regulate the four known causes, known to the early philosophers.
 
A creator god can be proven? MATHEMATICALLY! ??? EEEK.

Please explain how. Mathematics does not admit to possibilities as proof: mathematics DEMANDs certainty.

-----------

Science has different standards for "proof" [ Actually science abandons proof and works with theories' nemesis: falsification by counter evidence.]

As to creation proving God you are obviously unaware that creation from nothing is a central part of the quantum mechanical model that has been so successful in predicting how the universe works. Creation from nothing is all around us and taking place all the time: our universe doesn't work without it.

[search for vacuum energy and virtual particles. read and be amazed! The Universe is a very very strange place]
 
NoPoke:

You said: "A creator god can be proven? MATHEMATICALLY! ??? EEEK. Please explain how. Mathematics does not admit to possibilities as proof: mathematics DEMANDs certainty."

First, I would beg that you defer from semantics as a way to escape my meaning. By "mathematics" I mean the use of numbers, not the use of formulae. In such, "statistics" is the proper term. Now, if we say that the mathematics of probabilities is not precise enough to prove a Creator, then I would point to your own value placed on quantum mechanics, which is mathematical enough to be practical in the real world, proving it.

Second, I will not provide an answer here on the statistical necessity for a Creator, because it is clear that the preexisting attitude to disbelief will overcome the value of probability. And, by probability, I don't mean that the Creator wins by a slim margin, but by every conceivable measure. For there are only two choices: the universe was created or it was always here, and science knows it was created.

You said: "Science has different standards for "proof" [ Actually science abandons proof and works with theories' nemesis: falsification by counter evidence.]"

First, the "falsification by counter evidence" you say that science demands is science's own alternate theories to a Creator. For science has shown no method by which unintelligent creation may occur. Thus, those theories are the falsification. All lab reproduction of life, for example, is by intelligent creation, i.e., men reproducing that which is already created. Furthermore, every "scientific" theory of creation which I have ever seen ends with some modicum of intelligence inherent in the creation, whether we speak of predestined actions of particles and atoms, or some other method of (basically) renaming the Creator's methods (or God Himself).

Second, the mere fact that you mention "different standards for proof" indicates that theories which provide statistical superiority should be embraced until some better idea comes to be. The exclusion of God is merely anti-religious bias, and not a scientific method of exclusion. And the fact that science-minded folks love to refer back to persecution of science by religious powers (Galileo, e.g.) makes this exclusion more odoriferous.

Third, science itself has turned into a religion, providing sermons and apologists for conclusions which prove themselves to be inventions of men (ClimateGate comes to mind). More to my point, science makes metaphysical leaps which defy reason (CERN scientists claiming that a particle came back from the future to sabotage the first supercollider experiment because it found that future created so repugnant - they published this in a journal of science - it's called the Grandfather Theory, if I'm not mistaken). Such metaphysics only serve to make a Creator more real and palatable.

You said: "As to creation proving God you are obviously unaware that creation from nothing is a central part of the quantum mechanical model that has been so successful in predicting how the universe works. Creation from nothing is all around us and taking place all the time: our universe doesn't work without it. [search for vacuum energy and virtual particles. read and be amazed! The Universe is a very very strange place]"

First, you have cited probabilities as a way to exclude my original premise, which is the proof of a Creator through the mathematics of probabilities. This is a perfect example of a double standard.

Second, "creation from nothing" is exactly what I am positing, and what you are saying serves to prove it. Nevertheless, you exclude the Creator in order to marvel at the creation.

Third, even the examples you cite have not truly been explained nor even found. "Virtual" particles are just that. "Vacuum energy" is another way to explain the way in which constancy exists; or, as the ancients called it, the "aether." Constancy, as you know, is one of those marvels which puzzle scientists, but the immediacy of constancy (or, if you like, eventual order from chaos) is one of the definitive clues (and portion of statistical necessity) for a Creator.

In sum, science is proving, not disproving, a Creator.
 
From what I have read and understood the concept of religion and science butting heads is an allusion to empiricism vs faith. The former of the two is viewable and reproducable, reproducable under our 'control' while the other, 'faith' is not reproducable and is 'viewable' by believing eyes and not by non-believing ones.

Both NoPoke's post#368 and KingGengar's post#369 are well put, however I side with the latter based on personal belief.
 
I haven't seen, logically, how the Universe being created necessitates a God doing the creation.


For science has shown no method by which unintelligent creation may occur.
Click to expand...
According to your standard, any experimentation would necessarily include an intelligent creator/designer, so how would it be possible for science to ever show unintelligent creation? Observing the phenomena in the wild, but that wouldn't be an experiment due to uncontrolled factors and controls, etc.

It seems like you are setting up an impossible task in that, or at least begging the question by asking that such a thing be done (an experiment conducted without intelligence creating the objects). I don't really like that argument.

Second, "creation from nothing" is exactly what I am positing, and what you are saying serves to prove it. Nevertheless, you exclude the Creator in order to marvel at the creation.
Click to expand...
I think a certain 'leap of faith' is coming into play when you go from universe possibly needing a cause->creator->god that is rather unfounded.

If we look at Aboriginal spiritual doctrine, we could argue that the world was neither created nor destroyed, but it is merely our perspectives which ground a framework of time, and thus reality.

Firstly, I don't know if the universe needs a creator. Secondly, I don't know if that creator is an entity or a substance, or a force, etc. Thirdly, if I were to attribute such a cause to a being, why would I assume that the being is all-knowing, or all-good, etc. like we attribute to god (God). Lastly, couldn't someone demand that a reason exist for the creator existing?

I definitely see something miraculous in the mere fact that there is existence over non-existence, but your explanation seems to leave just as much mystery as other accounts. How does the creator exist before existence? Why does the universe need a creator? Why does a creator have to be an entity above and beyond a material item like energy or matter?

Second, I will not provide an answer here on the statistical necessity for a Creator, because it is clear that the preexisting attitude to disbelief will overcome the value of probability.
Click to expand...
Why is this clear?

I once had a bias towards religion. Then once against it. Now I am neither for nor against it, and am trying to see a middle ground. Now here you are telling me that some of us have a predisposition towards religious bias and will discount or ignore your statistical information. That's not the case! I am always willing to change and be convinced. Why else take philosophy or engage in discussion? If it's to repeat phrases and dance, then that seems rather pointless. I hope that the people still replying to this topic by now aren't the types of people who are writing long-winded responses merely for the sake of being steadfast in a particular mindset.

I have changed once, and I can change again, and I have no allegiances one way or the other. Science might lead us to think that the universe was created, but that merely opens up a new box of questions and explanations. I'm not sold that a. the universe must be created, b. that God would be the creator of the universe, and c. we don't have equally likely (logically? 'statistically?' (which can be augmented by logical possibility- which seems to be the most pressing and important of possibilities here?) explanations without a God.

Trust me, I know there are great arguments from many sides. But you are literally saying that science, or empiricism, shows that one belief system is proven (statistically) over the other. If this were the case, I think it would be a little more apparent, and we wouldn't have so much controversy and lasting debate.

I look forward to more responses!

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Actually, today in my seminar for philosophy of mind, we went over Berkeley's Three Dialogues.

It frames an account of the world that situates physical objects as being perceived things. Thus, perceived things depend on a mind, and physical objects are mind-dependent. Our relation to physical objects, through estimation of size, heat, color, etc. are all subjective and are mind-dependent, and to say that there are material substances would be positing that they can exist without a mind, and are ontologically distinct- but material substances are entirely unknown, and their natures and causes for perceptions are unexplained, leading away from common sense and towards skepticism.

The fact that physical objects are mind-dependent would demand a primary mind, or first mind- and that can be called god.

It's a very convincing, solid argument with lots of great responses to possible criticisms. Hume said about Berkeley's immaterialism that it could neither be refuted, nor could it convince. It seems counter-intuitive to say that there are no material substances, but it is hard to say that there are any either, leading to Berkeley's view holding little application.

Interestingly enough, many contemporary physicalist arguments use a similar argument from identity theory as Berkeley used. Instead, they identify ideas (thoughts, beliefs, desires) with material substances, whereas Berkeley identified physical objects with ideas, and would lead to entirely different conclusion.


Similar to how someone was talking about deriving different conclusions from the same data? It's cool stuff!
 
Last edited:
KingGengar I wasn't using semantics but it seems that you may be. I do not see how it is possible to construct a mathematically rigorous proof of God yet you declare that such exists. You accuse me of of deliberately misunderstanding when I even offer the alternative of scientific "proof" ( remember that this is a bit of an oxymoron)

Quantum mechanics has randomness at its very heart (God it appears DOES play dice) Quantum mechanics has phenomenal levels of prediction and explains the vast majority of the physical world that can be observed and tested by experiment. Quantum mechanics (QM) is really strange, it is much harder to accept than a creator or omnipotent god. Why? because the more you learn about QM the less sense it makes. It is completely and totally wierd yet it works. QM works phenomenally well. If you ignore QM then you end up with technology that doesn't work at all or doesn't work as expected.

Please don't try to equate the predictions made by the application of QM to those of religion / prophets / sooth sayers etc.. I contend that if there is a double standard then you are the one carrying it. :D I would contend that a creator is not required in order to marvel at the universe. I draw no conclusion about the existance or otherwise of a creator based upon the Universe being a marvellous thing.

Vacuum energy is not the aether. The virtual particles DO exist in the sense that we can detect their absence. Casimir effect rings a vague bell. But as it was nearly 30 years ago when I last did much of this I could have that detail wrong. Also from memory the adjective virtual is used to distinguish such particles from those that we can directly detect through experiment.
 
Last edited:
I agree with NoPoke that 'mathematically' we are unable to prove the existence of an entity called 'God' who is the absolute primary cause and therefor the ultimate cause of the universe. We are unable to prove or disprove it mathematically because of the shortsightdness of our intelligence and the instruments constructed by such intelligence. This is not to say that we will eventually have the formula to prove once and for all that the universe was created by design, I however personally believe we will never get such an equation, however I do believe an equation does exist that links God to all creation but we are limited/prevented to know what it is by deliberation of our 'Designer'.
 
Ryan:

I think it's terrific that you have such a deep interest in this, and not glancing or rhetorical. My refusal to offer my "proofs" are based on the experiences I have with those who like to debate without an open mind or a learning curve. You, sir, are an exception, and a welcome one! That said, it is better to discuss such things face-to-face, as the conversation tends towards a swift back-and-forth, which is necessary to filter the chaff (on both sides). Next time we meet, drag me to the side and we'll do this.

I will, however, respond now to this:

You said: "I definitely see something miraculous in the mere fact that there is existence over non-existence, but your explanation seems to leave just as much mystery as other accounts. How does the creator exist before existence? Why does the universe need a creator? Why does a creator have to be an entity above and beyond a material item like energy or matter?"

The mystery of existence itself is the key. Science has "explained" this in various ways, by the preexistence of matter (which tends to Aristotle), by the preexistence of energy, or by some convulsion of imagination which borders on (or resides in) metaphysics. Now, if anything preexists, but we refuse to say it is the Creator, what have we accomplished but to place cause after cause ad infinitum? And if we name it other than Creator, what have we accomplished but to ease our mind that a Creator is not possible? Mirrors looking on mirrors allow us to stare indefinitely, but the image in the mirror is... what? A mirror. I speak in physical terms in order to allow our minds to grasp the infinite, but I am inadequate here, for it might be asked, "What is the background of the image?" But the point is not physical, only conceptual.

In fact, the idea that the Creator must have a creator misses the reality even of science. First cause is a scientific goal of discovery, and it is antithetical to expect a believer in the Creator to produce a first cause for the believed first cause. "But," you protest, "you are asking me to have faith!" Not so. I have only determined that a first cause shall have no previous cause, and this is a truism without need for proof. "But," you continue, "how can you say that the first cause is the Creator?"

Ah, now we come to the solipsism. For one must deny the existence of anything beyond one's own mind and understanding to truly stand on such a conviction. One must deny order over chaos, constancy over randomness, systemic existence over individual accidents of so-called evolution (I do not deny evolution as it is, only as it is utilized).

You may see this coming, but the universe (creation) is like a Pokemon deck. Random 60-card decks may win a game here or there, but will not defy the recurring need to be consistent, built for particular metagames (swift, strong, resilient, etc), and able to repeat victory game-after-game. If anyone denies this, he or she is in for a bad tournament unless EXTREMELY lucky. This familiar imagery is the basis for intelligent creation over randomness (or even stasis). Has it ever occurred to you exactly how many victories it takes for a Big Bang to occur? Then, how many victories it takes to create an elemental table? Then, to form matter? Then, to create the conditions for life? Then, to create life? Then, to sustain life? Then, to create variety? And so forth...

I have only provided a portion and a brief overview of the discussion which must take place before one can either accept or dismiss a Creator.

The third question you asked is adequately answered by Maimonides, but I will say briefly that any Creator which is of the same "stuff" as the creation cannot be the Creator, for obvious reasons. And this is why Hawking is so hung up on trans-dimensional existence - he knows it.

NoPoke:

I will not argue accusations because none are made by me. Let us, however, define your own terms. You desire a "mathematically rigorous proof of God" but none will be forthcoming since it is not possible to explain in "rigorous" terms. On the other hand, the "mathematics" used will include numbers, and the "proof" obtained will be incontrovertible (unless one is predisposed to reject it).

The "alternative to scientific proof" is the idea of a Creator. However, the rejection of such as a permissible hypothesis, though the odds favor it, is expected, given history. There is no oxymoron in "scientific proof" since "science" is not necessarily in business to disprove ideas, being a useful tool for mankind to progress technologically. "Proof" in this respect means only what is useful for the moment, and the odds of a Creator over no Creator fall under this jurisdiction even without an observable Creator, the effects of such Creator being visible to all. This does not fall under "faith" since anyone with honesty must agree on several questions which, after a time, must cause such agreement or rejection (for whatever reason). The choice is not between science and religion, but between integrity and doctrine.

Regarding randomness and quantum mechanics, you repeat your earnest love for probabilities, which is the foundation of my argument also. Therefore, I need not prove my case since you agree. You also state that faith in QM is more difficult than in God; yet, in doing so, your life is better for it. Again, you agree with the mathematics, and also the principle of honoring effects, so I have no need to provide anything more "rigorous." It is interesting that you follow up with a plea to refrain from comparing QM probabilities with those I offer, and then are constrained to say that I will have committed a double standard by doing so. Why? I do not reject science - it proves my case.

You said: "I draw no conclusion about the existence or otherwise of a creator based upon the Universe being a marvelous thing."

By refusing to draw conclusions, you close your eyes to reality. If the universe is "marvelous" then it should cause you to ask, Why? - in a very scientific manner. Why, for instance, do your eyes perceive color? Why should color exist? Why should one sound be pleasing and one grating? Is everything evolutionary? Environmental? Why does camouflage in nature exist? Think about it before you answer, because the stock reply makes no sense. I can make a long list of questions concerning the marvelous, but the last question will be, How is ALL of it possible?

Are LuxChomp and Jumpluff superior decks by random chance and evolutionary forces? Did they just appear? One might argue that Jumpluff, Luxray, and other obvious cards placed together are not the result of thought and tinkering but of the solid nature of the cards themselves. This argument has some merit (again, Aristotle's theory) but not when constancy of events is necessary. It is not required that an entire game be played to prove this, but only to deal out the first seven cards multiple times; and, if the opening hand is not strong a majority of the time, your deck is inadequate regardless of any other attributes. Thus, victory is more likely when randomness is eliminated as much as possible. Or, is this universe just the luckiest dang random 60-card deck? Was it not constructed? Play-tested?

But cannot the Creator simply create a perfect deck, with no flaws? Yes. Then why did He not? There are two answers to this: (1) He did and we don't know it (the answer no one likes), and (2) perfection does not allow for human nature. This latter answer may seem only a rationalization, since we know imperfection to be true, thus making the self-fulfillment of it "not fair." But I say that seeking to explain imperfection as pure randomness is the exaggerated response of one who seeks a perfect creation by a perfect God. This rejection of the Creator through the discovery of imperfection is without merit, for it rejects the reality of perfection elsewhere.

Back to Pokemon, would you quit Pokemon simply because there is no perfect deck? No, you play because you love the game. Thus, this universe exists because the Creator desired it, and is imperfect by necessity, but not due to an imperfect Creator (a common argument). This universe is the greatest Pokemon deck ever constructed, and yet we diss the Creator of that deck by saying the universe is a lucksack.

If God plays a game, it's not dice, it's Pokemon.

On aether and vacuum energy, I subscribe to the idea that aether is the "fifth element," if you will. Or, the "holy grail" of physics wherein the four forces come united. Or, the force to hold it all together which, in a vacuum, causes sensational phenomena. It all depends how you see it. You were correct on Casimir effect.

My point on this and virtual particles is that it takes faith, for you can only see the EFFECTS and calculate the odds, just as I am saying. By disagreeing, we agree.
 
God is perfect, correct? Perfect things can only create more perfect things. We are definately not perfect.

Also, why is being homosexual not allowed in religions such as Christianity? Being g@y is part of our genetic code. WHy would God make us with that code if he did not want it in the first place ;)
 
Why would a perfect thing only be able to create more perfect things? Also, you can not use our pathetic meaning of perfection and apply it to something that truly is perfect. 100% perfection would not be good for our universe, as it would cause some serious issues with how many things, such as the environment, work.

As a response to your second sentence: why don't you actually do some research first before making such an ignorant statement? Again, in our world, there are imperfections, including IN religions. Why does this always seem to shock you so much?
 
The concept of perfection as being a property or attribute of a Creator whose creation is not perfect is very interesting. I have argued before that the flaw in God being perfect is that perfection can only produce perfection i.e. itself and since perfection is complete, absolutely complete perfection cannot even produce itself.

In order for there to be a 'Creator' who is 'Perfect' it must be admitted that it has the power of imperfection while remaining perfect in order to create something 'imperfect'

That said perfection and imperfection are based upon personal perception and the lack or limit of such perception.
 
Will-iam:

I agree on perceptions of perfection and imperfection. This, naturally, should lead to the proper introspection concerning man's arrogance towards his own judgment. Reason demands that reason wins out, but what is "reason"? Is it the talent to weasel out of corners which frighten (the propensity towards security over insecurity; or, as Locke put it, towards pleasure over pain)? All who adhere to doctrine for the sake of security have surrendered (even if only temporarily) truth and the search for it.

On the "power of imperfection," there is a great treatise on the subject which deliberates that God knows all paths to the future but not the one that you or I will ultimately choose, only those which we will not, leaving it open that God's apparent emotions are not simulated but real. That is, He can be surprised. In the tradition of open-mindedness, I find this fascinating and quite possible, especially that it does not cancel any His perfection. That is, He allows Himself to be surprised.
 
If God has truly designed something that is even veiled to God then God isn't omniscient i.e. all-knowing. Though that is a wonderful contradiction the contradiction that God 'knows' all time, things and thought but not that what God gives or grants freereign to the thinking and bringing about of such through us. Though if God truly does have the first and last word then God cannot not be surprised but who is to say that God ever started to speak and who is to say God has spoken it may be that God has remained silent throughout or is speaking and has always been speaking for such is the nature of the 'Logos' to speak, to sing to bring harmony out of chaos and chaos into harmony.

And what is future? a presence of a time that gives the admittance or the assumption that it's a ceasless continuence with or without us or even God a constant unfoldment of the potential in to product and in to performance? To me there is neither past nor future not even presence of the present there is only construct of past through the representation of 'memory' and 'prayer' and 'fear' i.e. the request for something or someone outside of time that knows and can be asked for safekeeping and the feeling of helplessness of going unheeded and unaided to be left groping in the dark for the future and a presence of an awareness that I came from somewhere and am going somewhere but in what direction or how I do not know.

If God truly is surprised then God is not a 'Perfection' for a perfect as a completion a completion that admits of no flaws and no tarnishing. God as the Golden-Person AKA Suvarnam-Purusa admits of no dross. God however as a Perfection as a 'Performance' a platform and an on going act flawless and genuine that has and never will be 'completed' thus removing it from perfection as completion but not perfection as an on going performance has potential and more than that is potential.
 
DarthPika said:
Why would a perfect thing only be able to create more perfect things? Also, you can not use our pathetic meaning of perfection and apply it to something that truly is perfect. 100% perfection would not be good for our universe, as it would cause some serious issues with how many things, such as the environment, work.

As a response to your second sentence: why don't you actually do some research first before making such an ignorant statement? Again, in our world, there are imperfections, including IN religions. Why does this always seem to shock you so much?
Click to expand...

Why don't you answer the question instead of bashing me for no reason. I have done my research and it there is evidence to show that people are born a homosexual.

@Will-iam
How can God be omniscient if we have free-will. He knows what we are going to do, but we have a choice? They contradict each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top