Is God competent or incompetent?

[ding]

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?

The safest course of action - and by safest I mean to say the way that keeps us from not incrementally lowering a standard - is to never deviate from the standard in the first place.

 

[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.

However, Hoyle much preferred a different model of the cosmos: a steady state universe with no beginning or end, that stretches infinitely into the past and the future. That idea never really took off.

In recent years, however, cosmologists have begun to study a number of new ideas that have similar properties. Curiously, these ideas are not necessarily at odds with the notion of a Big Bang.

For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.

Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.

So although we seem to live in an inflating cosmos, other universes may be very different. And while our universe may look as if it has a beginning, the multiverse need not have a beginning.

Then there is the idea of an emergent universe which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands.

Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning

 

[ding]

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

Because that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Eventually we would reach thermal equilibrium and since we don't see that now, it means the universe has not existed forever.

No one believes in an eternal cyclical universe anymore. They have lost all credibility.

 

[ding]

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

Again, same answer. That violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Eventually we would reach thermal equilibrium and since we don't see that now, it means the universe has not existed forever.

 

[ding]

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.

That's what inflation theory does. It describes how all the matter occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.

And then began to expand and cool (i.e. as per Einstein's General Theory of Relativity).

 

[ding]

"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.

And by breakdown, what he means to say is yield infinities. It seems even the equations are telling us that the solution is something which is eternal and unchanging.

The singularity is not a problem. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's equation start there and go forward. Our inference that all the matter in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom comes from running those equations backwards, the red shift and background radiation. So everyone's models start from that position. Even these guys.

Inflation theory tells us how the matter got there. From a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Any model which claims the universe had no beginning or ending is claiming an infinite universe. That just isn't possible due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[ding]

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.

However, Hoyle much preferred a different model of the cosmos: a steady state universe with no beginning or end, that stretches infinitely into the past and the future. That idea never really took off.

In recent years, however, cosmologists have begun to study a number of new ideas that have similar properties. Curiously, these ideas are not necessarily at odds with the notion of a Big Bang.

For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.

Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.

So although we seem to live in an inflating cosmos, other universes may be very different. And while our universe may look as if it has a beginning, the multiverse need not have a beginning.

Then there is the idea of an emergent universe which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands.

Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning

Did you even read your link. They are discussing inflation theory.

It is your understanding of what they are saying that is flawed.

If you like I can quote the link you provided where they contradict what you are saying.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Because that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Eventually we would reach thermal equilibrium and since we don't see that now, it means the universe has not existed forever.

No one believes in an eternal cyclical universe anymore. They have lost all credibility.

That's right. Our ONE Universe had a beginning but that doesn't mean the multiverse isn't eternal.

 

[sealybobo]

"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.

And by breakdown, what he means to say is yield infinities. It seems even the equations are telling us that the solution is something which is eternal and unchanging.

The singularity is not a problem. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's equation start there and go forward. Our inference that all the matter in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom comes from running those equations backwards, the red shift and background radiation. So everyone's models start from that position. Even these guys.

Inflation theory tells us how the matter got there. From a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Any model which claims the universe had no beginning or ending is claiming an infinite universe. That just isn't possible due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Again, this universe may have a beginning and an end but that's only our one universe.

I know we can never test this but the fact remains it's possible that another universe existed before our universe was born. Must have been. Not impossible either.

 

[ding]

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

Because that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Eventually we would reach thermal equilibrium and since we don't see that now, it means the universe has not existed forever.

No one believes in an eternal cyclical universe anymore. They have lost all credibility.

That's right. Our ONE Universe had a beginning but that doesn't mean the multiverse isn't eternal.

It means that every universe ever created had a beginning.

 

[ding]

"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.

And by breakdown, what he means to say is yield infinities. It seems even the equations are telling us that the solution is something which is eternal and unchanging.

The singularity is not a problem. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's equation start there and go forward. Our inference that all the matter in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom comes from running those equations backwards, the red shift and background radiation. So everyone's models start from that position. Even these guys.

Inflation theory tells us how the matter got there. From a quantum tunneling event which did not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Any model which claims the universe had no beginning or ending is claiming an infinite universe. That just isn't possible due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Again, this universe may have a beginning and an end but that's only our one universe.

I know we can never test this but the fact remains it's possible that another universe existed before our universe was born. Must have been. Not impossible either.

And they each had their own beginning.

 

[Spare_change]

Is God competent or incompetent?


We are told in scriptures that evil begets evil and good begets good. God, as our creator, according to scriptures, creates us all as sinners, which many see as evil.


God can thus be seen and judged as being the original sinner since the fruits of his labor (us) went bad or are born bad. A tree is known by its fruits. What else could come from a sinner tree but sin?


I give God a fail on competence for the following reasons.

God created heaven that produced Satan. Fail.

God created Eden which produced Original Sin. Fail.

God had to reboot creation with Noah’s flood. Fail.

God sent his son to forgive mankind instead of stepping up himself. Fail, for moral reasons.

God also had to create hell for his rejects which scriptures say will be the vast majority of us. Fail.


Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds and if we believe that, then the Christian God would obviously be rejected by Jesus and agree with my fail judgement.


Do you agree?


Regards

DL

Obviously, you have allowed your ignorance to outweigh your intellect.

God did NOT create us as sinners. In fact, He created us in His image - and free of sin - , and it was through our own misdeeds that we were levied with 'original sin'.

Argument just kinda falls apart, doesn't it?

I can't even give you credit for a nice try ... it was a pathetic effort wrapped in ignorance, and surrounded by prejudice.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Because that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Eventually we would reach thermal equilibrium and since we don't see that now, it means the universe has not existed forever.

No one believes in an eternal cyclical universe anymore. They have lost all credibility.

That's right. Our ONE Universe had a beginning but that doesn't mean the multiverse isn't eternal.

It means that every universe ever created had a beginning.

Of course they did. Every black hole might be a portal into another universe. Maybe when a black hole sucks everything into it and it packs everything together into the size of an atom and then BANG another universe is born.

 

[sealybobo]

Is God competent or incompetent?


We are told in scriptures that evil begets evil and good begets good. God, as our creator, according to scriptures, creates us all as sinners, which many see as evil.


God can thus be seen and judged as being the original sinner since the fruits of his labor (us) went bad or are born bad. A tree is known by its fruits. What else could come from a sinner tree but sin?


I give God a fail on competence for the following reasons.

God created heaven that produced Satan. Fail.

God created Eden which produced Original Sin. Fail.

God had to reboot creation with Noah’s flood. Fail.

God sent his son to forgive mankind instead of stepping up himself. Fail, for moral reasons.

God also had to create hell for his rejects which scriptures say will be the vast majority of us. Fail.


Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds and if we believe that, then the Christian God would obviously be rejected by Jesus and agree with my fail judgement.


Do you agree?


Regards

DL

Obviously, you have allowed your ignorance to outweigh your intellect.

God did NOT create us as sinners. In fact, He created us in His image - and free of sin - , and it was through our own misdeeds that we were levied with 'original sin'.

Argument just kinda falls apart, doesn't it?

I can't even give you credit for a nice try ... it was a pathetic effort wrapped in ignorance, and surrounded by prejudice.

 

[ding]

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

Because that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Eventually we would reach thermal equilibrium and since we don't see that now, it means the universe has not existed forever.

No one believes in an eternal cyclical universe anymore. They have lost all credibility.

That's right. Our ONE Universe had a beginning but that doesn't mean the multiverse isn't eternal.

It means that every universe ever created had a beginning.

Of course they did. Every black hole might be a portal into another universe. Maybe when a black hole sucks everything into it and it packs everything together into the size of an atom and then BANG another universe is born.

Except you still run into the problem of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If that has been going on forever then everything would be at thermal equilibrium.

 

[ding]

.

What's going on with this, bro?

This is not someone you should be jerking around.

 

[RWNJ]

Is God competent or incompetent?


We are told in scriptures that evil begets evil and good begets good. God, as our creator, according to scriptures, creates us all as sinners, which many see as evil.


God can thus be seen and judged as being the original sinner since the fruits of his labor (us) went bad or are born bad. A tree is known by its fruits. What else could come from a sinner tree but sin?


I give God a fail on competence for the following reasons.

God created heaven that produced Satan. Fail.

God created Eden which produced Original Sin. Fail.

God had to reboot creation with Noah’s flood. Fail.

God sent his son to forgive mankind instead of stepping up himself. Fail, for moral reasons.

God also had to create hell for his rejects which scriptures say will be the vast majority of us. Fail.


Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds and if we believe that, then the Christian God would obviously be rejected by Jesus and agree with my fail judgement.


Do you agree?


Regards

DL

Obviously, you have allowed your ignorance to outweigh your intellect.

God did NOT create us as sinners. In fact, He created us in His image - and free of sin - , and it was through our own misdeeds that we were levied with 'original sin'.

Argument just kinda falls apart, doesn't it?

I can't even give you credit for a nice try ... it was a pathetic effort wrapped in ignorance, and surrounded by prejudice.

The reason people like the OP act this way is because they refuse to take responsibility for anything. They believe that they can somehow create an excuse that will keep them from going to Hell. Well, God doesn't listen to excuses, and He definitely will not give anyone a pass, for any reason. The choice is clear. Repent and accept Christ as Lord of your life, or reject Him and go to Hell. I know, I know. Someone already told me that was a threat. Hard to believe someone can be that stupid. It's no different than telling a child not to stick his hand in the fire. In both cases, you listen or you get burned. This isn't rocket science, people.

 

[sealybobo]

.

What's going on with this, bro?

This is not someone you should be jerking around.

View attachment 172089

I wouldn’t do that you ahole. But I’m the perfect example of someone who you think believes in god but in reality I don’t. If she does that’s all that matters

 

[ding]

.

What's going on with this, bro?

This is not someone you should be jerking around.

View attachment 172089

I wouldn’t do that you ahole. But I’m the perfect example of someone who you think believes in god but in reality I don’t. If she does that’s all that matters

No. That was a perfect example of someone being fake.

 

[sealybobo]

.

What's going on with this, bro?

This is not someone you should be jerking around.

View attachment 172089

I wouldn’t do that you ahole. But I’m the perfect example of someone who you think believes in god but in reality I don’t. If she does that’s all that matters

No. That was a perfect example of someone being fake.

Oh come on I was being totally sincere. I lost my mom two years ago. I even called my dad to read her reply. Remember I’m agnostic? So god bless her! Even if I don’t believe in god. Should I go back and tell her? I will if you want