Zone1 Why doesn't god just kill satan

[Meriweather]

No they don't. Good and evil arise together as part of the whole, as two sides of the same thing. There can be no evil without goodness also existing. Is this really a hard thing to understand?

I'm kind of a word freak. Opposite means up against or facing. Light can exist without darkness. Good can exist without evil. Both are possible. Darkness cannot exist when light is present. Evil cannot exist when overshadowed by good.

One is not simply the absence of another. It would be like saying that Left and Right do not arise together and that one is just the absence of the other.

Left and right are examples of two things that are up against each other or facing each other. It indicates direction.

Satan exists in contrast to God, God cannot just "kill" Satan anymore than he could kill himself. This is the duality of existence.

Satan's existence is not what is in contrast. God and Satan are two different beings. Their purposes may be in contrast or opposing (up against) the purposes of the other.

 

[hobelim]

If there had never been any evil, there could not be any "good" because you can only define "good" in contrast to its opposite.

Nonsense. In nature is it good or evil when a lion eats a gazelle alive? People have made this determination as to what is good and what is evil. Some religions believe it is good to worship and eat an imaginary mangod. Is it?

"The man who once boasted that he was going to restore the glories of ancient Rome,” wrote the Times, "is now a corpse in a public square in Milan, with a howling mob cursing and kicking and spitting on his remains.” Indeed, the scene was grisly: the bodies of Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci dangling upside down by their heels in front of a gas station in Milan’s Piazzale Loreto."

Was it good or evil that Mussolini's life ended in this manner, mr. science guy?

 

[toobfreak]

I'm kind of a word freak. Opposite means up against or facing.

That is not the definition of opposite.

Light can exist without darkness. Good can exist without evil. Both are possible.

Nope.

Darkness cannot exist when light is present. Evil cannot exist when overshadowed by good.

Double nope. You obviously are not hearing what I am telling you.

God and Satan are two different beings.

Try again. Satan was originally an angel who fell out of Heaven. They are like tip and fletching on an arrow; each is at opposite ends of the same thing, an arrow cannot be an arrow without both.

With goodness comes the possibility of evil, and with evil comes the possibility of goodness.

This is grade-school stuff.

 

[ding]

lol.. I have seen with my own eyes, in full view of heaven and earth, politicians shamelessly paying homage to Satan and a brood of vipers running for political office using all the powers that deception can inflict on the gullible, all those who are doomed to destruction because they would not open their minds to the love of truth. Just like you. Not to worry! Rising from "the dead" is as easy or as difficult as it is for anyone to be honest with themselves and others. Putz.

You are on a mission to subordinate Christianity and that makes you a religious nutjob.

 

[ding]

It is not a matter of absence, it is a matter of the two arising together mutually as opposites, get it?

• You cannot have cold without the possibility of heat also.
• You cannot have darkness without the possibility of light.

Without heat, cold has no meaning. Without light, darkness is undefined.

No. I don't get it. Heat is extant. Light is extant. Cold and darkness are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the extant. They can only be described in terms of the thing that exists.

 

[ding]

I always find that such explanations are destined to fail because we then just need to ask the obvious follow up questions:

What causes the perturbation in the quantum field? Where did those quanta come from?

I say the perturbation was the creative act of God. I say this because it appears to be intentional. There are quite a few things that make happenstance too improbable.

As for where those quanta came from, they popped into existence. Where or what were they prior to that? They existed in a probability state of existing and not existing. In other words, they only existed as potential.

 

[ding]

It is intuitively obvious to me — but that only means that I could still be wrong!

True, but there are only two options; the universe was created intentionally or through happenstance. And if we study what was created we don't see randomness. We see reason and purpose.

 

[toobfreak]

Cold and darkness are not extant.

Sure they are! Cold and darkness make up 99.999999999999999% of the universe.

They only exist as the negation of the extant.

Wrong. You can never negate the extant. It was cold infinitely long before heat was ever seen, felt or even thought of, yet there could not be heat without cold. And it was dark infinitely long before light was ever seen, felt or thought of, yet, without darkness, there could be no light.

They can only be described in terms of the thing that exists.

BINGO. How would you define, describe or know light if everything was light? You can only know or define light through its opposite. Thus, with goodness comes evil. The two walk hand in hand.

 

[ding]

In the biblical story of the Garden of Eden, the serpent, acting as an instrument of Satan, deceived Eve into eating the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Satan used cunning and persuasion to lead her to believe that eating the fruit would make her "like God, knowing good and evil," tempting her with the allure of knowledge and power. This deception led to the fall of humanity and the introduction of sin into the world.

And you believe this is an example of religious people blaming Satan for what they have done?

I submit to you that this is just another example of your desire to look down upon religious people to make yourself feel superior to them. Which is really your only objective here. You aren't genuinely curious about why people hold their beliefs. It's more like a game to you.

 

[ding]

Sure they are! Cold and darkness make up 99.999999999999999% of the universe.


Wrong. You can never negate the extant. It was cold infinitely long before heat was ever seen, felt or even thought of, yet there could not be heat without cold. And it was dark infinitely long before light was ever seen, felt or thought of, yet, without darkness, there could be no light.


BINGO. How would you define, describe or know light if everything was light? You can only know or define light through its opposite. Thus, with goodness comes evil. The two walk hand in hand.

Is darkness the absence of light?

Is cold the absence of heat?

 

[ding]

No, not so fast! It's never been established by science that space and time were created, and didn't always exist.

The CMB and red shift are the physical evidence for the universe popping into existence, not being created from existing matter/energy, and expanding and cooling. And this freaks you out because you understand what it implies.

What PHYSICAL evidence do you have for your belief that space and time were not created from existing matter/energy and has always existed? How do you explain the existence of the CMB which is literally PHYSICAL evidence?

 

[toobfreak]

The universe was created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics

Or at least some set of laws within which these other laws also exist.

which means the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time.

Well obviously. That is a given. Any idiot could see that, otherwise you would be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[ding]

Or at least some set of laws within which these other laws also exist.


Well obviously. That is a given. Any idiot could see that, otherwise you would be putting the cart before the horse.

I've had lots of "idiots" argue the laws of nature did not exist before space and time. In fact, Donald H just made that argument when he said space and time (aka the universe) has always existed.

 

[toobfreak]

I say the perturbation was the creative act of God. I say this because it appears to be intentional. There are quite a few things that make happenstance too improbable.

At the risk of sounding like an impersonalist, I just have to add that probability can be virtually eliminated given an infinite amount of space and time. Still, the universe is no accident. You are dancing within an inch of the very nature of God and being.

As for where those quanta came from, they popped into existence. Where or what were they prior to that? They existed in a probability state of existing and not existing. In other words, they only existed as potential.

Thank you. Someone here seems to understand something of statistical mechanics.

 

[Street Juice]

It's a simple matter of the Laws of Physics:

Nothing that doesn't exist can destroy something that doesn't exist.

 

[toobfreak]

Is darkness the absence of light?
Is cold the absence of heat?

Seriously? Now you are linking me to some internet bullshit? I'm TELLING you the dual nature of being. Up to you to listen. Every cup comes with the possibility of being either full or empty. For a cup to be full, it also must have the possibility of being empty. Emptiness is not simply the absence of fullness--- the possibility of one creates the other.

 

[ding]

At the risk of sounding like an impersonalist, I just have to add that probability can be virtually eliminated given an infinite amount of space and time. Still, the universe is no accident. You are dancing within an inch of the very nature of God and being.


Thank you. Someone here seems to understand something of statistical mechanics.

If there is an infinite amount of space and time - which implies the universe has always existed - how do you explain the existence of the CMB and red shift?

Or are you suggesting that the universe had a beginning and is only eternal into the future? Because if that is the case, I'm not sure what you are trying to say about probability can be eliminated given an infinite amount of space and time.

 

[toobfreak]

I've had lots of "idiots" argue the laws of nature did not exist before space and time. In fact, Donald H just made that argument when he said space and time (aka the universe) has always existed.

Really. That indicates a complete lack of understanding of things. This goes hand-in-hand with the duality of existence--- before you can create space and time, first must exist the physical laws in which space/time is defined and governed. This is so self-evident, it borders on child-like common sense.

In that sense, the laws of nature are more real, the true reality of nature more so than space and time themselves, which are only a reflection of, a shadow of those laws.

 

[toobfreak]

If there is an infinite amount of space and time - which implies the universe has always existed -

Does it? Are you sure there cannot be infinite space and time yet limits on when our universe existed? Because, you'd be wrong. Also, consider this, even with finite space and time, you could never fly to the edge of the universe nor travel back to its beginning, because you are IN space/time--- nothing in space/time can measure outside the framework of space/time.

how do you explain the existence of the CMB and red shift?

That is easy. But you are falling into the trap of thinking of the universe as if it were a big saucer of earth on the backs of four elephants like our ancestors did. Our universe is nothing more than a transitory bubble within a pot of boiling stew, surrounded by an infinite number of other universes boiling away. The CMB only relates to ours, and the red shift is merely the expansion of the space/time framework--- we cannot be truly sure whether the universe itself is actually growing bigger or whether it is just our perception of the space/time framework changing because to know for sure, we would have to step outside space/time.

Or are you suggesting that the universe had a beginning and is only eternal into the future?

It has both a beginning and an end. Space/time is only unbounded to anything trapped inside the cardinal points of space/time. I mean, the Earth is finite in size yet if you jump in a plane and take off flying, you could head in any direction yet never reach an end to the Earth. Given the fuel, you could fly on forever. Where the confusion sets in is the fact that there are many layers/levels to both space and time and how/where you measure them from. Where people fail at understanding this is their tendency to think in terms of linear flat reality when in fact, reality is far more bizarre than you can even imagine.

 

[hobelim]

Satan's existence is not what is in contrast. God and Satan are two different beings. Their purposes may be in contrast or opposing (up against) the purposes of the other.

That's a point that has always astonished me, the fact that some people believe that Satan and God are somehow equal adversaries which is an impossibility if God alone is God.

Satan, the talking serpent of old, is just anyone who promotes as good what God has clearly forbidden.