If God of Abraham is true, then why didnt he use his intelligent design to make a new

[SteveII]

Your whole premise is flawed. 

1. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of good. As Augustine said 1700 years ago: "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"
2. Giving people free will mean giving them the ability to choose evil.
3. Creating a world of creatures without free will would be pointless. Everything would be deterministic and essentially robotic. No love, no companionship, no meaningful relationships. 
4. God does not send us to hell. Because God is completely both Holy and Just, we cannot be reconciled to him without having something cleanse us of our unholiness. He has provided such a way. If we refuse the free gift, it is us who send ourselves to eternal separation from God.

Your premise is quite flawed as well.

I believe there is a verse that says he does, in fact, create evil. But even without that, he does claim some things he doesn't like is evil. He creates us with the ability to choose to do things he doesn't approve of, and calls those things evil. Even if they're things that are fundamental to our physical and mental health. Whether he personally throws us into hell or not, he's still responsible for that place being there, and for torturing people in fire for eternity, according to mainstream christianity. This is why people compare him to a mob boss that destroys your establishment because you didn't pay him protection money. Or an abusive parent/spouse. Calling him holy or just is a pretty wild claim, given his actions.

No, there is not a verse that says that. If your talking about Isaiah 45:7, then you need to read the context and translation--it means discipline. 

If evil is not a thing but the absence of a thing, it was not created. Everything you mentioned as examples of evil are the absence of God's will, characteristics, desire, or presence.

---

God never lost control; the Quran mentions it clear that this life is nothing but a test.
Even demons were his creation; after all. Satan, too.

Have you ever offered a reply that wasn't a vapid useless Q-tip erm Quran quote?

---

Your whole premise is flawed. 

1. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of good. As Augustine said 1700 years ago: "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"
2. Giving people free will mean giving them the ability to choose evil.
3. Creating a world of creatures without free will would be pointless. Everything would be deterministic and essentially robotic. No love, no companionship, no meaningful relationships. 
4. God does not send us to hell. Because God is completely both Holy and Just, we cannot be reconciled to him without having something cleanse us of our unholiness. He has provided such a way. If we refuse the free gift, it is us who send ourselves to eternal separation from God.

1: So god is not all powerful
2: This eliminates all knowing
3: In your world view life is meaningless, this all pointless, Just accept christ and move onto eternity
4: Sure he does, It's even laid out in your book of fables how to get there and all of the other fun eternal damnations.

1. That is a mis-characterization. He has chosen to limit himself in favor of free will (which is clearly the theme of the entire Bible).
2. No it does not. There are several ways to explain God's foreknowledge of what we will freely do.
3. That is to completely mistake my worldview for that of an atheist. I believe people have intrinsic value and purpose not granted to them by circumstances. 
4. Then you should read more before you attempt to argue against what you don't understand.

[Chad32]

Just ignoring most of what I said, huh? Did you read past the sentence when I mentioned the verse?

[SteveII]

Just ignoring most of what I said, huh? Did you read past the sentence when I mentioned the verse?

I will expound on what I said in both posts then. It is my opinion/understanding...

Free will is required to choose evil, but even free will is really not something created like a universe or an animal. It is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. If evil is defined as anything contrary to the nature/will of God, it simply does not follow that God is responsible for evil.  Only moral agents are. 

God does not "throw us" into anything. Hell is the result of our actions. 

I think your view of hell is off. Places cannot be evil in the sense an action or a result can be (so God is still not creating evil). I believe that while it is a place of torment, one is not eternally tortured by some overlord doing things to you. We are talking about souls and NOT bodies. There is no physical pain because there is nothing physical. The pain is spiritual and stems from the complete separation from God--a condition that obviously has a profound effect on the immaterial soul.

[Mister Agenda]

The Bible verse saying hell is spiritual separation from God is where?

I withdraw the question. Christians going the 'spiritual separation' route is an improvement over the 'hellfire' route; and I don't want to discourage it.

[Chad32]

Yeah, the whole spiritual separation thing sounds like a fine alternative. Though that's not what a lot of christians believe hell is. It's easier to scare people straight with threats of fire than threats of not having to be around a god that the atheist likely believes is evil anyway.

[Cyberman]

Evil is not the absence of good. It is the opposite of good. It is negative good. It is anti-good. The absence of good is the same as the absence of evil: neutrality.

[SteveII]

The Bible verse saying hell is spiritual separation from God is where?

I withdraw the question. Christians going the 'spiritual separation' route is an improvement over the 'hellfire' route; and I don't want to discourage it.

It is my view that the immaterial soul is the thing going to hell--which would be an immaterial place/existence/experience. Flames and teeth are material and would have no effect on the immaterial so all the lake of fire/weeping and gnashing of teeth references seem to be metaphors trying to approximate the sensation one's soul will experience when totally separated from God. I think this position is well grounded in verses as well as inductive reasoning.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"

Matthew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

---

Evil is not the absence of good. It is the opposite of good. It is negative good. It is anti-good. The absence of good is the same as the absence of evil: neutrality.

Thank you for correcting my phrasing. I agree with you.

[drfuzzy]

Isaiah 45:7         King James Version (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Exactly how does this mean "discipline" and "I don't create evil"? 

"You're taking it out of context!"  "It doesn't say what you think it does!"  "You should read the translation!"

Any deity capable of creating the entire universe, with billions of galaxies, should be able to write a book that CAN'T be taken out of context or mis-translated.

[SteveII]

Isaiah 45:7         King James Version (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Exactly how does this mean "discipline" and "I don't create evil"? 

"You're taking it out of context!"  "It doesn't say what you think it does!"  "You should read the translation!"

Any deity capable of creating the entire universe, with billions of galaxies, should be able to write a book that CAN'T be taken out of context or mis-translated.

So, you think we should set aside that this is obviously poetry. Set aside the fact that evil is defined as the deprivation of good (and therefore not a thing that can be created). Set aside that this was not written in english. And conclude instead that this lone poetic clause in a poetic verse in a poetic chapter changes the whole nature of reality. You can go with that. I'm going to look at it on context.

[Cyberman]

Evil is not the absence of good. It is the opposite of good. It is negative good. It is anti-good. The absence of good is the same as the absence of evil: neutrality.

Thank you for correcting my phrasing. I agree with you.

I will just expand on this, now that I'm not on my mobile.

Neutrality in the face of evil can be at least as evil, if only in intent. For instance, if I closed the door on a rapist and leave him to his act, knowing what suffering is occurring but choosing to do nothing about it, I would be just as culpable as the rapist (if not more so).

I don't think there is a comparable state in the face of good.

---

(Bonus kudos to anyone spotting the inadvertent Doctor Who reference.)