Is God competent or incompetent?

[GreatestIam]

I see that as a lie as I do not see freedom of choice in your childish way.

Honest men can have honest differences of opinions without needing to call the opinions of others childish. If your opinions were objective you wouldn't be threatened by the opinions of others and need to call them childish. You indict yourself through your own words.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

You have free will. Feel free to blame God for anything you choose. But it is a sign of an external locus of control.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

Not my interpretation. That is yours. Mine is that everything God made is good and we have a choice to be good or devoid of good. Blaming others for your mistakes is a failed behavior which will naturally lead to failure.

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Again, everything God made is good and we have a choice to be good or devoid of good. Blaming others for your mistakes is a failed behavior which will naturally lead to failure.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

False. They also do good. So sin nature is not necessarily dominant. There is a distribution and when the distribution is evaluated, man is overwhelmingly good.

God doesn't punish us. How does God punish us?

I agree that man has a lot more good in him than evil.

That fact does not negate that he also must do evil as he evolves.

You must both cooperate and compete as you evolve and competition is the only source of what the losers to those competitions will see as evil.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

God seems to have anger issues

The Great Flood, Killing the firstborn of Egypt

He needs to learn to lighten up

For sure.

You would think that a God would know that curing is more moral and better than killing.

Regards
DL

So what do you believe God should have done?

I hinted at it in my post. Cure instead of kill.

What do you think God should have done?

What would you have done given his power?

Regards
DL

 

[rightwinger]

God seems to have anger issues

The Great Flood, Killing the firstborn of Egypt

He needs to learn to lighten up

Are you another one of those who blames God for all the bad stuff but refuses to credit Him for all the good stuff?

Hate to tell ya

But flooding the entire earth and killing every living thing is the bad stuff
What would you think if the Devil had done that?

 

[GreatestIam]

God seems to have anger issues

The Great Flood, Killing the firstborn of Egypt

He needs to learn to lighten up

Are you another one of those who blames God for all the bad stuff but refuses to credit Him for all the good stuff?

Hate to tell ya

But flooding the entire earth and killing every living thing is the bad stuff
What would you think if the Devil had done that?

To a Gnostic Christian, it was an evil demiurge who did those atrocities.

The thing to wonder is why Christians see their evil God as good.

Regards
DL

 

[Windparadox]

Thanks for coping out again. Regards DL

`
I'll take that as a big NO. So'k. It's classic philosophy. I had to read it in college. I was rather enlightening however.

 

[GreatestIam]

Thanks for coping out again. Regards DL

`
I'll take that as a big NO. So'k. It's classic philosophy. I had to read it in college. I was rather enlightening however.

If you had a point to make, you would have made it.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

Are you one who gives God credit for the good but blames man, his creation to you, for all the evil?

No. I am the one who gives God thanks and praise for all He has given us. You are the one who focuses on assigning blame. My focus is not to rationalize that I am doing right when I am really doing wrong.

Do you just ignore the words in scripture that say God is responsible for all things?

Maybe you are paraphrasing and don't understand what the Bible is telling you.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these"

Amen. And evil is still not extant. As in evil does not exist. Evil is the absence of good.

When interpreting scripture it is helpful to understand the literary type and the context of the times when it was written. Otherwise you could end up with a faulty interpretation like when satan quoted scripture. Thus proving that anyone can quote scripture for their own device.

 

[ding]

Nope. Inflation theory says otherwise. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Ya, because man knows everything there is to know about that and made a law. Sheesh you're simple.

You are the type that worships science until it doesn't suit your purpose, amirite?

nope.

That's pretty funny because you just shit all over the leading cosmological model of how the universe began , bro.

Please don't try to argue above your brain grade, it's going to give me another headache.

That's pretty funny for a guy who just tried to tell me to ignore the leading cosmological model of how the universe began.

 

[ding]

Thanks for coping out again. Regards DL

`
I'll take that as a big NO. So'k. It's classic philosophy. I had to read it in college. I was rather enlightening however.

If you had a point to make, you would have made it.

Regards
DL

Some points can't adequately be made in the message box of an online forum.

Other points are better made by those who have been recognized as an authority.

Anyone who scoffed at this type of knowledge, like you just did, would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as the vast majority of what we know has been accepted on the authority of others. You know... Like Aquinas.

 

[ding]

I see that as a lie as I do not see freedom of choice in your childish way.

Honest men can have honest differences of opinions without needing to call the opinions of others childish. If your opinions were objective you wouldn't be threatened by the opinions of others and need to call them childish. You indict yourself through your own words.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

You have free will. Feel free to blame God for anything you choose. But it is a sign of an external locus of control.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

Not my interpretation. That is yours. Mine is that everything God made is good and we have a choice to be good or devoid of good. Blaming others for your mistakes is a failed behavior which will naturally lead to failure.

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Again, everything God made is good and we have a choice to be good or devoid of good. Blaming others for your mistakes is a failed behavior which will naturally lead to failure.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

False. They also do good. So sin nature is not necessarily dominant. There is a distribution and when the distribution is evaluated, man is overwhelmingly good.

God doesn't punish us. How does God punish us?

I agree that man has a lot more good in him than evil.

That fact does not negate that he also must do evil as he evolves.

You must both cooperate and compete as you evolve and competition is the only source of what the losers to those competitions will see as evil.

Regards
DL

But history has shown that as man's conscious and conscience have evolved, man has become less evil.

It seems that God may know what He is doing after all.

Competition is NOT the only source of what the losers to those competitions will see as evil. But that is certainly a Gnostic worldview.

 

[sealybobo]

The other gods are more ridiculous than yours. Happy now?

There is only one Creator. You choose to believe we believe there are many gods to justify your own beliefs. It's like a disease here.

What makes you think that there is only one creator? Anything specific?

You mean besides common sense and experience?

How about Occam's razor?

Common sense should tell you god is made up.

Common sense tells me the exact opposite.

Besides aren't you agnostic?

I'm agnostic the same way you are agnostic. You don't know for sure a god exists anymore than I know one doesn't.

If you are not agnostic then neither am I. Because just as sure you are there is a god, I'm that sure there isn't. How sure are you?

 

[sealybobo]

That's it? Some gay quote? In other words, you ain't got shit.

bro.

That seems to be your go to response, Taz.

C'mon, you don't have a real answer for why you think there can be only one creator? That's YOUR go to answer, nonsense?

I believe that God is existence itself. There is only one existence.

You are convinced that all of his is silly so you put forth silly beliefs. Such as you don't believe there are any so you argue that there are many. See?

Someone yesterday was arguing with me about multiverses. They couldn't imagine the cosmos go on forever. Infinitely. That was incomprehendable. But ask them if god is infinite and eternal they have no problem believing that.

Multiverses do not mean they are contiguous or infinite.

Besides no matter how one cuts it each of those multiverses had a beginning that was controlled by rules. Rules which existed before the inflation of each universe. Rules that no one knows where they come from. So no matter how you slice it there will always be the first cause conundrum, and the only solution to that is something that is eternal and unchanging.

If it's eternal there is no first cause. And even god faces the first cause problem right?

 

[ding]

God seems to have anger issues

The Great Flood, Killing the firstborn of Egypt

He needs to learn to lighten up

For sure.

You would think that a God would know that curing is more moral and better than killing.

Regards
DL

So what do you believe God should have done?

I hinted at it in my post. Cure instead of kill.

What do you think God should have done?

What would you have done given his power?

Regards
DL

So then you think you know more than God? Have you ever read Job Chapter 40 before?

I wouldn't dare to presume anything for God. He doesn't need my help.

 

[ding]

That seems to be your go to response, Taz.

C'mon, you don't have a real answer for why you think there can be only one creator? That's YOUR go to answer, nonsense?

I believe that God is existence itself. There is only one existence.

You are convinced that all of his is silly so you put forth silly beliefs. Such as you don't believe there are any so you argue that there are many. See?

Someone yesterday was arguing with me about multiverses. They couldn't imagine the cosmos go on forever. Infinitely. That was incomprehendable. But ask them if god is infinite and eternal they have no problem believing that.

Multiverses do not mean they are contiguous or infinite.

Besides no matter how one cuts it each of those multiverses had a beginning that was controlled by rules. Rules which existed before the inflation of each universe. Rules that no one knows where they come from. So no matter how you slice it there will always be the first cause conundrum, and the only solution to that is something that is eternal and unchanging.

If it's eternal there is no first cause. And even god faces the first cause problem right?

Not for what is eternal. Correct. That's why it is the solution to the first cause conundrum.

No. God does not face that problem because like you said, If it's eternal there is no first cause.

 

[ding]

God seems to have anger issues

The Great Flood, Killing the firstborn of Egypt

He needs to learn to lighten up

Are you another one of those who blames God for all the bad stuff but refuses to credit Him for all the good stuff?

Hate to tell ya

But flooding the entire earth and killing every living thing is the bad stuff
What would you think if the Devil had done that?

Did you really hate saying that?

I don't believe in the devil. I'm Jewish in that way.

As to the flood, it is an allegorical account of an actual event. Pretty much all of Genesis is.

 

[ding]

God seems to have anger issues

The Great Flood, Killing the firstborn of Egypt

He needs to learn to lighten up

Are you another one of those who blames God for all the bad stuff but refuses to credit Him for all the good stuff?

Hate to tell ya

But flooding the entire earth and killing every living thing is the bad stuff
What would you think if the Devil had done that?

To a Gnostic Christian, it was an evil demiurge who did those atrocities.

The thing to wonder is why Christians see their evil God as good.

Regards
DL

The Gnostics were reprehensible people. No wonder you don't discuss your beliefs.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[ding]

There is only one Creator. You choose to believe we believe there are many gods to justify your own beliefs. It's like a disease here.

What makes you think that there is only one creator? Anything specific?

You mean besides common sense and experience?

How about Occam's razor?

Common sense should tell you god is made up.

Common sense tells me the exact opposite.

Besides aren't you agnostic?

I'm agnostic...

Let me stop you there. You are in no way shape or form an agnostic. You are an atheist. Probably a militant atheist but most definitely a borderline militant atheist.

 

[Windparadox]

If you had a point to make, you would have made it.Regards DL

`
I can't argue points about things you don't understand. You'd first need to know the particular dialectic Aquinas used when writing the Summa.. The Catholics call him "Saint Thomas Aquinas.". He was big on "natural law metaphysics"....but alas, I digress.

 

[sealybobo]

The common thread here is that all those problems are through the Christian bastardization of The Judaic teachings/ concepts/precepts.
They don't become fails or confused when using the original understanding/descriptions.

I agree.

Note how Christians see a fall in Eden while Jews see man's elevation.

Christians got the beginning wrong so it is not surprising that they would get most of scriptures wrong.

Regards
DL

And yet what this Christian saw was the self evident truth that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. And that man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

Genesis isn't implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

Now go fuck yourself.

To prefer good over evil, man must have the knowledge of good and evil.

Regards
DL

Evil is nothing more than the absence of good. Evil does not exist on it's own. It is the absence of something else, in this case good. Just like cold is the absence of heat or darkness is the absence of light.

Man does prefer good over evil. He doesn't need to experience evil to know that he prefers good over evil. What he needs to do is stop rationalizing that when he does evil he is doing good.

Reminds me of when we dropped the bomb on Japan. We justified that what we were doing was not evil. But then we can't see that the Taliban didn't think they were doing evil on 9-11.

And then the native American indians. Were they evil? They scalped their victims. They enjoyed war. They enslaved their captives. Were indians evil? They sure sound a lot like Boka Haram don't they?

 

[sealybobo]

C'mon, you don't have a real answer for why you think there can be only one creator? That's YOUR go to answer, nonsense?

I believe that God is existence itself. There is only one existence.

You are convinced that all of his is silly so you put forth silly beliefs. Such as you don't believe there are any so you argue that there are many. See?

Someone yesterday was arguing with me about multiverses. They couldn't imagine the cosmos go on forever. Infinitely. That was incomprehendable. But ask them if god is infinite and eternal they have no problem believing that.

Multiverses do not mean they are contiguous or infinite.

Besides no matter how one cuts it each of those multiverses had a beginning that was controlled by rules. Rules which existed before the inflation of each universe. Rules that no one knows where they come from. So no matter how you slice it there will always be the first cause conundrum, and the only solution to that is something that is eternal and unchanging.

If it's eternal there is no first cause. And even god faces the first cause problem right?

Not for what is eternal. Correct. That's why it is the solution to the first cause conundrum.

No. God does not face that problem because like you said, If it's eternal there is no first cause.

Well why can't the multiverses be eternal? But not in the way you think. Every universe and star dies. But they are also reborn. Never ending. Eternal.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

Read more at: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.