re-EVOL-ve

[786]

So God created evil, in other words.

'Evil' as a choice yes- but the evil you witness is our choosing that evil.

The standard answer, to which I have the standard reply: why would he create evil people in the first place, and then judge and punish those who exhibit it? Seems awfully cruel, considering that an omnipotent being could have just created perfect, good humans to begin with, and so skipped all the suffering and evil-doing.

Hmm... I never said he created evil people.... he created the choice but the choice to choose evil is humans only. He did create Angels which can't do evil- the difference between Humans is that they can with full control do the right things- for which reason they are placed higher than Angels-

And the last part of your comment- the only 'evil' you witness is relative to you.

And then there's all that suffering that isn't the result of human moral decisions: natural disaster ("acts of God," as it were), birth defects, predation, etc. Why would a just, loving God create a world with so much inherent, unchosen suffering?

God doesn't create natural disasters (although he could/ and has in some instances) - they are 'natural' as natural would imply. It is more about how you handle the suffering, rather than anything else. You might as well ask why God created 'death'- as for the 'just God'- you are assuming that you actually exist. Another assumption is that God has to be 'just' in this world while it could be that he does not interfere here and is 'just' on "judgment day'

So then why didn't he create humans that would always choose good over evil? Is he omnipotent, or not?

Why should he? If he is the creator then he can choose the purpose and the conditions.

Indeed. The kicker here is that none of the standard explanations I've heard square with the purported properties of God as good and omnipotent. If he were good, but not omnipotent, that would be fine. Likewise if he were omnipotent but not good (which sounds like what you're suggesting, actually). But not both.

God is neither good nor evil- they are relativistic terms- nothing outside of Him exists- so he can't be good nor evil- He is attributed to be 'good' because he prefers you to choose that which is 'good' in your relativistic world.

Created by the assertion of omnipotence. Just because you don't bother asking a question doesn't mean it isn't salient. The concept is ill-defined to begin with.

I see.... Yes the word is ill-defined.... You could re-define to mean: the ability to do everything that doesn't exceed His own self. In which case even we are omnipotent- but he is the Ultimate one as in being able to do everything that anything else can do and being able to do everything he Himself can do. I think the reason the word 'omnipotent' is used is so that you don't have to list down everything he can do (as you would have to do with my definition)- so it is a matter of convenience just take it to mean the 'ultimate power' that can do basically everything.

And yet, it's produced a great deal of quality science of the years.



But the point is more that questions of existence in that case are not interesting: they have no bearing on reality. And so we see that almost all theists go much further in their descriptions of god, to include active intervention in nature. What's the point in believing in something that makes no difference one way or the other?

Science does not and can not explain everything. I don't believe this to be a reason for believing in God, but I'm just saying that your last question is based on the assumption that you know everything and can know everything to determine if something makes a difference or not.

Sure, but - again - scientists have been around for a long time. Longer than saints, I'd note. And they've certainly gone looking for evidence, and examined purported miracles where available. All to no avail.

That being the assumption that they truly were saints- (I don't even know if saints exist, I was simply trying to point out that the events could be isolated ones that scientists pay no attention to)

It's true that the failure of any particular prayer isn't that compelling. But when you notice that none of them appear to have been answered, for going-on thousands of years now... I mean, certainly some of those prayers were from righteous people, asking for righteous things, no?

Can you name a study of prayer that has been on-going for a thousand years- I would love to read their thousand year finding. And perhaps none of them were righteous enough to have had that specific prayer accepted. Anyways there are too many uncontrollable variables to take any such experiments seriously.

And carefully controlled experiments have been done to test the power of prayer to heal the sick. To no avail. Are we to infer that the people who prayed weren't sufficiently sincere? Wrong religion? God doesn't care about the afflicted? None of these explanations square well with the manner in which God is presented: good, omnipotent, and amenable to prayer.

And what controls were used for this experiment? The assumption is that a prayer be accepted because of the manner God is presented as? It is also assumed that the effect of a prayer is direct, while it could be 'accepted' through natural interactions. It is also assuming (since you're talking about death)- that a prayer will stop someone from dying when death is made to be a guarantee-

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

The point is that you don't gain anything, by positing such explanations. "God caused the Big Bang" is no different from "the Big Bang just happened."

And a gain is important why? Secondly if it is no different than 'just happened' which IS accepted then for the other to be rejected when they are the same thing is ridiculous.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

If we cannot test it, and it doesn't explain anything that can't be explained by some other naturalistic means, then it's worthless as an idea and can be dismissed. Great examples of this are the celestial teapot, or the flying spaghetti monster.

The claims about the supernatural, however, are not like this. They suggest that the supernatural is observable and real, and so fall under the realm of scientific inquiry.

The beginning of the beginning can not be explained by naturalistic explanations- because at this point even nature wouldn't exist. You can use the concept of infinity but in no real observable way.

I already said that an explanation for the beginning is still an explanation- whether testable or not- doesn't matter if they are celestial teapot or flying spaghetti monster.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Nut sack.

Thanks for responding but I'm done with that topic... would love to respond but don't feel like wasting time as I'm satisfied by the discussion with Spidergoat.

Peace be unto you

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Thanks for responding but I'm done with that topic... would love to respond but don't feel like wasting time as I'm satisfied by the discussion with Spidergoat.

The thread is on that topic. Maybe you should start a new one?

Peace be unto you

Sir Syphilis of the Clap

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The beginning of the beginning can not be explained by naturalistic explanations- because at this point even nature wouldn't exist. You can use the concept of infinity but in no real observable way.

Every theory of reality I am aware of doesn't have the notion of "a beginning". In those models, reality simply is and what you interpret as beginnings and endings are blips of change in an ever-changing reality.

 

[786]

The thread is on that topic. Maybe you should start a new one?

You're right.... but since we've already started on it, I was like might as well continue here....

Sir Syphilis of the Clap

Is that really someone, sounds cool

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Every theory of reality I am aware of doesn't have the notion of "a beginning". In those models, reality simply is and what you interpret as beginnings and endings are blips of change in an ever-changing reality.

Of 'reality' yeah. But of the universe, no.

Peace be unto you

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Of 'reality' yeah. But of the universe, no.

Well if you consider the inflation of our current universe from a maximally compressed structure "a beginning" then you do have a relative point to go from; however, the universe may have inflated/deflated many times before or at the least been in any number of different and unknown states.

Peace be unto you

I would prefer an apple pie.

 

[786]

Well if you consider the inflation of our current universe from a maximally compressed structure "a beginning" then you do have a relative point to go from; however, the universe may have inflated/deflated many times before or at the least been in any number of different and unknown states.

Yes that is a possibility. It would all depend if the universe (including its beginning) have always existed (in time)- some theories propose that Big Bang created Space-Time which would mean the universe had a beginning. Anyways the point is the situation isn't totally worked out yet- there are differing theory, some quite different than Big Bang although Big Bang has definitely garnered a lot of attention and is portrayed as a more accepted theory- although I don't know if this is true- just my observation due to its popularity.

I would prefer an apple pie.

May you have a apple pie

 

[swarm]

Ok.... and so what do you think current atheists believe?

Same as they always have: You claim of god is a bunch of bullshit.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Yes that is a possibility. It would all depend if the universe (including its beginning) have always existed (in time)- some theories propose that Big Bang created Space-Time which would mean the universe had a beginning. Anyways the point is the situation isn't totally worked out yet- there are differing theory, some quite different than Big Bang although Big Bang has definitely garnered a lot of attention and is portrayed as a more accepted theory- although I don't know if this is true- just my observation due to its popularity.

I am going to up the interesting ante here. It is correct that the universe to the best of our knowledge is made of space-time and that there was a point where t=0 (the moment before initial inflation). Now here's the kicker. Time isn't required for all things to change. WTF you ask? Let's take photons as an excellent example. They are moving at ~186,000 mps. When something goes that fast time stops... that is if there were tiny clocks on those photons then they would read exactly the same no matter how many lightyears they travel. What does that mean? Simple. Photons travel through space and not time. Physics is even weirder than you think .

May you have a apple pie

No no no. Say it like this:

"Applie pie be unto you"

 

[786]

Same as they always have: You claim of god is a bunch of bullshit.

Ok that assertion requires a proof to back it up.... go ahead open a new thread based on this assertion.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Physics is even weirder than you think

I agree. But I don't think I like the assertion 'time stops'- for one the number ~186000 is m/s - that is per second so it is defined in terms of time- only thing you can say is that time become almost infinitely small which by convention we would take the limit to = 0 (as in stop) - but this is only in convention not because it actually stops because as long as a quantity is defined it terms of time, time is always there, and infinitely small is still 'small' enough to exist..... so I think

No no no. Say it like this:

"Applie pie be unto you"

I thought this would be me trying to dump apple pies on you so.... but if you want...

Apple pie be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

The beginning of the beginning can not be explained by naturalistic explanations- because at this point even nature wouldn't exist. You can use the concept of infinity but in no real observable way.

I already said that an explanation for the beginning is still an explanation- whether testable or not- doesn't matter if they are celestial teapot or flying spaghetti monster.

Peace be unto you

There are plausible naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe consistent with physical laws. Extraordinary claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, since nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist.

 

[786]

There are plausible naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe consistent with physical laws. Extraordinary claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, since nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist.

Nothing random has been shown to exist either- you can debate that more in my 'God of Science' thread.

Also dismissal is not rejection.

Have a good day (I'll try to remember to stick to this)

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I agree. But I don't think I like the assertion 'time stops'- for one the number ~186000 is m/s - that is per second so it is defined in terms of time- only thing you can say is that time become almost infinitely small which by convention we would take the limit to = 0 (as in stop) - but this is only in convention not because it actually stops because as long as a quantity is defined it terms of time, time is always there, and infinitely small is still 'small' enough to exist..... so I think

Technically it would be time stopping for one number in a vaccum . Stuff the travelling component in any other medium and results may vary. Let's hypothetically say that photons only reach a near stop in time (even though it really is absolute). They move through space really really fast regardless... hence time is not required for change there.

I thought this would be me trying to dump apple pies on you so.... but if you want...

Apple pie be unto you

Yes yes yes!

 

[786]

Technically it would be time stopping for one number in a vaccum . Stuff the travelling component in any other medium and results may vary. Let's hypothetically say that photons only reach a near stop in time (even though it really is absolute). They move through space really really fast regardless... hence time is not required for change there.

This is going over my head to be frank.... Physics isn't exactly my strong point... but I take your explanation as a possibility.

Yes yes yes!

You getting excited over pies? Do you eat a lot of sugar

Apple pies be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

Nothing random has been shown to exist either- you can debate that more in my 'God of Science' thread.

Also dismissal is not rejection.

Have a good day (I'll try to remember to stick to this)

http://www.random.org/

There are many things science cannot disprove, but that doesn't mean they are useful concepts. Not being able to be disproven is no basis for a belief.

 

[spidergoat]

The beginning of the beginning can not be explained by naturalistic explanations- because at this point even nature wouldn't exist.

It can be explained by quantum tunnelling from another universe- one where time runs in reverse.

I already said that an explanation for the beginning is still an explanation- whether testable or not- doesn't matter if they are celestial teapot or flying spaghetti monster.

But some explanations are more valid than others. Naturalistic ones are more logical, since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist.