Application for a Nobel Prize?

[Divine Insight]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 118 by Divine Insight]

Parents aren't responsible for having created the world in which their children live.

well right, we make advice and resources available, to a degree, but we want them to make their own worlds for themselves- even though this involves risks- right?
out of malevolence? or love?

Also, there are people (myself included) who have chosen not to create any children precisely because there is no way to protect them from the hostile world in which we live

So do you wish your parents had done the same, or are you glad, grateful to them to be able to experience life?

Would you purposefully design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other in order to survive? I wouldn't.

I'd include benefits of competition and cooperation

So how can you compare parents with a creator God? There is no comparison.

the father gives the child life, free will, resources, skills, desire, inspiration, to go out and face the world, to learn and grow- knowing there are potentially both grave risks and glorious rewards waiting for them, hoping that they choose good, but knowing that 'good' is a choice among others...

Which am I talking about? a good parent or God?
I don't know either

Although I'm not sure we can actually say that jellyfish don't have their own sense of comfort and discomfort. If they do, then this would be their judgment of what they consider to be "good" or "bad" even if they don't take the concept to the same level of abstraction that humans do

well quite, even if they do in some reduced form, they are not pondering the meaning of it. We are the only means we know of by which the universe literally ponders it's own existence and meaning.

maybe that's pure coincidence, and maybe not

This doesn't excuse a supposedly "Perfect God" for being malevolent.

again, exposing a child to life with all it's ups and downs, is 'malevolent' ?
or loving?

No, most parents to not refuse to grant their children their every wish because they love them. They refuse to grant them their every wish because they simply don't have the resources to grant them.

In fact, wealthy people grant their children far more of what their children want than poor people do simply because they can.

which kid is happier?

Well, there you go. Your God has to have this ability yet refuses to use it to restore health and comfort to his children who have been seriously injured.

after a certain age- you don't bandage your kid's finger, you hope they can not only do it themselves, but for other people


But let's imagine you are God, you create a world where you cure every single injury and ailment with a magic wand, as if they never existed.

Just think it through; what happens to empathy? kindness? caring for each other? - never mind all the advancements we have made in medicine, technology to solve problems for ourselves

we know we are delicate, fleeting, vulnerable, children especially

Jellyfish do not feel empathy, they can do nothing to intentionally benefit one another

not even a hug, a smile, an 'I Love you' -

would you trade yet?

[Divine Insight]

Also, there are people (myself included) who have chosen not to create any children precisely because there is no way to protect them from the hostile world in which we live

So do you wish your parents had done the same, or are you glad, grateful to them to be able to experience life?

As it turned out I was extremely lucky. I haven't had to experience any serious pain and suffering, especially not physical. At least not yet. But that was certainly the result of pure luck and not anything my parents had any control over. Not only that, but if Christianity is true I'm supposedly headed to eternal damnation for not believing in the absolute ignorance of Christian theology.

So yeah, if I actually do end up in an eternal state of torment I most certainly will be wishing that my parents had chosen not to create me.

As a Christian I would NEVER have any Children precisely because of that potential fate for them.

How horrible would it be to have a child only to discover that when you go to heaven your child ended up in hell? That would have to be the worst thing ever for an sane human. And let's not forget that this horrible fate is actually God's design.

Would you purposefully design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other in order to survive? I wouldn't.

I'd include benefits of competition and cooperation.

That wasn't the question. The question wasn't about the BENEFITS of competition. I asked if you would purposeful design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other to SURVIVE whether they are interested in competing or not.

You are very good ad evading the real issues aren't you?

So how can you compare parents with a creator God? There is no comparison.

the father gives the child life, free will, resources, skills, desire, inspiration, to go out and face the world, to learn and grow- knowing there are potentially both grave risks and glorious rewards waiting for them, hoping that they choose good, but knowing that 'good' is a choice among others...

Which am I talking about? a good parent or God?
I don't know either

What makes you say that such a parent would be "good"?

I disagree. Tossing someone into an environment that has grave risks and merely 'hoping' that they just happen to luck out and make good choices isn't a very wise thing to do, IMHO.

Especially not when far better alternatives are available for a truly omnipotent omniscient God.

Apparently you don't think very highly of your God's capabilities.

Although I'm not sure we can actually say that jellyfish don't have their own sense of comfort and discomfort. If they do, then this would be their judgment of what they consider to be "good" or "bad" even if they don't take the concept to the same level of abstraction that humans do

well quite, even if they do in some reduced form, they are not pondering the meaning of it. We are the only means we know of by which the universe literally ponders it's own existence and meaning.

maybe that's pure coincidence, and maybe not

It wouldn't be a 'coincidence', it would simply be the way things are. There is nothing to 'coincide' with.

This doesn't excuse a supposedly "Perfect God" for being malevolent.

again, exposing a child to life with all it's ups and downs, is 'malevolent' ?
or loving?

Designing a child that is ill-equipped to deal with the dangers would ineed be 'malevolent'. And only one example is sufficient to show that the creator of humans is therefore malevolent. And there are far more than one example to be had, unfortunately.

Think about Adolph Hitler (one of God's Children), not only did this child fall prey to the hazards of this world, but according to what most Christians believe he was then cast into an eternal hell of torture.

What kind of a parent was God to Hitler. Huh? Not a good parent at all.

No, most parents to not refuse to grant their children their every wish because they love them. They refuse to grant them their every wish because they simply don't have the resources to grant them.

In fact, wealthy people grant their children far more of what their children want than poor people do simply because they can.

which kid is happier?

There are no constants. Some kids who were given everything they ever wanted turned out to do great things and become happy productive adults. Other's have no done so well.

Same is true for kids who had parents who couldn't give them much of anything. In fact, history shows that criminal behavior tends to breed at a far higher rate in places where children are raised by very poor families.

So your question is meaningless. The happiness of someone is not directly dependent one how much their parents were able to provide for them. And, in truth, kids who were given a better start in life have historically tended to end up being happier too.

So the historical answer to your question "which kid is happier?' appears to be the ones who are given the best resources to work with.

Again, if this is your excuse for why a supposed Creator God wouldn't help his children succeed in life fails miserably.

Well, there you go. Your God has to have this ability yet refuses to use it to restore health and comfort to his children who have been seriously injured.

after a certain age- you don't bandage your kid's finger, you hope they can not only do it themselves, but for other people

Why keep talking about what inept selfish human parents might do?

How is that supposed to excuse the bad behavior of an omnipotent Creator God?

But let's imagine you are God, you create a world where you cure every single injury and ailment with a magic wand, as if they never existed.

Just think it through; what happens to empathy? kindness? caring for each other? - never mind all the advancements we have made in medicine, technology to solve problems for ourselves

we know we are delicate, fleeting, vulnerable, children especially

Jellyfish do not feel empathy, they can do nothing to intentionally benefit one another

not even a hug, a smile, an 'I Love you' -

would you trade yet?

I wouldn't need to. It's a false dichotomy.

You are pretending that a God would need to be as inept and incapable as you imagine. Why should I accept your limitations on what an omnipotent omniscient God could do?

Moreover, you surely can't be arguing for the God of "Christianity", because Christianity includes a concept of a "Perfect Heaven", the Kingdom of God, that is perfect.

According to your argument no such place can exist as it would be devoid of love, empathy, and fulfillment.

Therefore you have just made the perfect argument AGAINST Christianity.

You can't argue that a perfect world is impossible and claim to be supporting Christianity in the same breath. That's an oxymoron.

[mgb]

Would you purposefully design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other in order to survive? I wouldn't.

Much as you dislike theology it does give coherent answers to these questions:-

God made a perfect world of spirit. Creation turned away from God. Now creation must work to return to God. The competition you speak of generates evolutionary pressure, not just in physical terms, but also in spiritual terms; it builds character. It is a good.

Exactly. And why is that? Because humans invented the concept [of good and evil].

If you think carefully you will see that St. Agustine is right. Evil is not a positive entity in itself. It is a corruption of good, a corruption of life. Without good there is no evil because evil is a parasite that corrupts life. This can be understood empirically.

Random chance doesn't need to explain it because human evolution didn't happen by random chance.

According to the theory the foundation is random. If random mutations don't come up with the goodies Natural Selection has nothing to select. So it is fundamentally random - according to the theory that is.

If we want to give our children a meaningful life out of love then so should God. So then please explain why so many of "God's Children" are suffering horrendous lives?

Because of evil and the fall. God uses suffering to strengthen fallen creation. Eternal separation from God is worse than temporary suffering.

As a human parent if your child was horribly injured in an accident, let's say they were even burned and grossly disfigured. If you could wave a magic wand and restore them to pristine health would you do it. I think any loving parent would.

The problem with that is that if God healed the worst suffering He would be expected to heal the worst of what remains. And by similar reasoning He would have to heal all ailments. Prevent all suffering, while humanity continues to choose evil time and time again. Humanity must see the suffering evil causes in order to reject it.

Also, there are people (myself included) who have chosen not to create any children precisely because there is no way to protect them from the hostile world in which we live. It's not just the natural disasters, disease, and potential accidents that could happen, but there are many other factors as well.

That does not change much. The child's spirit will be born into another home regardless.

And let's not forget that this horrible fate is actually God's design.

It is not God's design. It is a consequence of freedom and the misuse of freedom.

That wasn't the question. The question wasn't about the BENEFITS of competition. I asked if you would purposeful design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other to SURVIVE whether they are interested in competing or not.

Humanity is fallen and imprisoned in evil. It must work and endure the necessity of the world to evolve. (See Simone Weil's writings on necessity)

I disagree. Tossing someone into an environment that has grave risks and merely 'hoping' that they just happen to luck out and make good choices isn't a very wise thing to do, IMHO.

It is not just luck. All humans can be helped if they fight the good fight. There is much more to it than luck.

Think about Adolph Hitler (one of God's Children), not only did this child fall prey to the hazards of this world, but according to what most Christians believe he was then cast into an eternal hell of torture.

What kind of a parent was God to Hitler. Huh? Not a good parent at all.

You are forgetting about free will. Not only are people free, some insist on being free on their own terms; some are determined to be evil.

Same is true for kids who had parents who couldn't give them much of anything. In fact, history shows that criminal behavior tends to breed at a far higher rate in places where children are raised by very poor families.

That's a moot point. But you are talking about ordinary crime. Some of the most evil people were not deprived at all...

You can't argue that a perfect world is impossible and claim to be supporting Christianity in the same breath.

Perfection is eternal and infinite. A material world cannot be such and was not meant to be.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 121 by mgb]

God uses suffering to strengthen fallen creation.

"In the end, we can certainly understand believers’ motives. Suffering and premature death are often so terrible, so disturbing, and so unfair that we need some story to help soften the blow. Unfortunately, the very comforting story that Christians have developed inevitably unravels under close, rational scrutiny. It is just too speculative and implausible. It requires us to posit some fictitious, invisible compensation for all of the evil that we observe, to treat it all as somehow a blessing in disguise. This kind of conversion of evil into its very opposite is a species of magical thinking and denial. And denial is not only irrational and insulting to victims; it also encourages complacency and fatalism."

God, Heaven, and Evil
A Renewed Defense of Atheism

https://tinyurl.com/y93lmbjc

[Divine Insight]

Would you purposefully design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other in order to survive? I wouldn't.

Much as you dislike theology it does give coherent answers to these questions:-

God made a perfect world of spirit. Creation turned away from God. Now creation must work to return to God. The competition you speak of generates evolutionary pressure, not just in physical terms, but also in spiritual terms; it builds character. It is a good.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the theology. The theology is extremely self-contradictory.

You claim that suffering and competition "builds character". But obviously it doesn't. Have you forgotten that in this theology mankind's character has constantly fallen into a state of total evil? Recall the reason for the Great Flood?

Why are you ignoring the fact that the character of humanity has constantly fallen into evil ever since the flood. How does that equate to a world that "Builds Character"? Your claim about this theology is the anti-thesis of the theology itself.

In Christianity no human is even permitted have successfully built any respectable character that has any merit. In Christianity all humans are permitted to do is come to Jesus and confess that they have no character worthy of salvation on its own merit and beg Jesus to give them undeserved amnesty via the mercy of Grace.

So this theology makes absolutely no claim that this world was designed to "Build Character". According to this theology building character is something that no human can ever achieve. It's taboo to even suggest that a mortal man has built sufficient character to merit his own salvation.

That would be heretic blasphemy against this theology.

So your apology here fails miserably. And the suggestion that I'm merely voicing a dislike of this theology is utter nonsense. I'm pointing out the truth that this theology is itself an extreme self-contradictory theology. My personal opinions of it are totally irrelevant.

Exactly. And why is that? Because humans invented the concept [of good and evil].

If you think carefully you will see that St. Agustine is right. Evil is not a positive entity in itself. It is a corruption of good, a corruption of life. Without good there is no evil because evil is a parasite that corrupts life. This can be understood empirically.

Sure, we can define "good" and "evil" in this secular way. Sam Harris would be the first to agree with this.

But that kind of secular definition of "good" and "evil" doesn't require a jealous God who condemns people to hell if they refuse to believe in him and worship the religion that lays claim to owning him.

Random chance doesn't need to explain it because human evolution didn't happen by random chance.

According to the theory the foundation is random. If random mutations don't come up with the goodies Natural Selection has nothing to select. So it is fundamentally random - according to the theory that is.

Yes, a random element is required. But that's nowhere near the same as the process of evolution being an entirely random process.

All you are doing here is either displaying an ignorance of how evolution actually works, or dare I suggest, purposefully misrepresenting evolution in an effort to support an ancient barbaric male-chauvinistic jealous-God religion that is based in extremely self-contradictory fables.

If we want to give our children a meaningful life out of love then so should God. So then please explain why so many of "God's Children" are suffering horrendous lives?

Because of evil and the fall. God uses suffering to strengthen fallen creation. Eternal separation from God is worse than temporary suffering.

But as I already explain, suffering doesn't build character and according to the Bible the fallen creation is NOT strengthening. Not only is it not strengthening, but in this theology that not even open to possibility. Every human must fail in God's eyes and the only way to obtain eternal life in his heaven is by asking for undeserved amnesty, NOT by demonstrating character. It's flat-out taboo to claim to be worthy of heaven in this religion.

According to Christianity no one is admitted to heaven because they have earned their way in on the merit of their own character. Heaven will be a society of "saved" immoral humans who have simply confessed that they are indeed immoral and without sufficient character to merit being there.

And what will heaven be like? Will there be suffering and evil in heaven? If not, then clearly worlds can exist that do not contain suffering and evil. Thus proving that suffering and evil are not required to have a meaningful existence.

Christianity proves that its own apologies necessarily fail.

As a human parent if your child was horribly injured in an accident, let's say they were even burned and grossly disfigured. If you could wave a magic wand and restore them to pristine health would you do it. I think any loving parent would.

The problem with that is that if God healed the worst suffering He would be expected to heal the worst of what remains. And by similar reasoning He would have to heal all ailments. Prevent all suffering, while humanity continues to choose evil time and time again. Humanity must see the suffering evil causes in order to reject it.

Why even bother with any of this? No human can earn their way into heaven by having rejected evil. Moreover, if there is no evil in heaven why would it be important for people who go to heaven to reject evil anyway?

Can anyone be harmed in heaven? Can anyone be hurt in heaven?

The problem with this theology is that none of these things that you are arguing for would have anything to do with any heaven anyway. If the purpose is to live in a heavenly paradise that could have been achieved straight-away.

What you are actually arguing against is the existence of the Christian Heaven.

Also, there are people (myself included) who have chosen not to create any children precisely because there is no way to protect them from the hostile world in which we live. It's not just the natural disasters, disease, and potential accidents that could happen, but there are many other factors as well.

That does not change much. The child's spirit will be born into another home regardless.

And so now the responsibility for what happens to that child is on God, not on me.

If that child goes to hell no one can be blamed for that but God himself.

Apparently I have higher moral values than this God of yours.

I would never create a situation where anyone would be condemned to eternal suffering.

Yet this is what your God is based upon.

In fact, according to Christian theology and words attributed to Jesus himself, the vast majority of humans will be condemned and only few will make it into the Kingdom of Heaven.

If I was a Creator God who was that inefficient at creating living creatures I would STOP creating them until I could figure out a way to improve the process dramatically.

Your God would need to be a complete careless idiot to just keep on creating more and more human souls knowing that he's going to cast the vast majority of them into eternal suffering.

And let's not forget that this horrible fate is actually God's design.

It is not God's design. It is a consequence of freedom and the misuse of freedom.

Hogwash. You can't claim that this God is the ultimate designer of creation and then try to claim that the creation itself can somehow be blamed for this God's poor design.

This is itself an extremely contradictory apology for an extremely self-contradictory theology. These lame excuses keep piling up but they don't support the theology, or justify how this God can be so inept.

By his own admission this God loses the vast majority of human souls he creates. And even he is sorry that he created them (see the story of the Great Flood). This is a God who is even fed up with his own inability to create a decent world.

That wasn't the question. The question wasn't about the BENEFITS of competition. I asked if you would purposeful design a world where everyone needs to compete with each other to SURVIVE whether they are interested in competing or not.

Humanity is fallen and imprisoned in evil. It must work and endure the necessity of the world to evolve. (See Simone Weil's writings on necessity)

Sorry, Christianity does not permit the world to evolve. You seem to keep forgetting that in Christianity the only way out is to confess to Christ that you are a worthless pathetic human incapable of evolving and bet for undeserved amnesty.

Even spiritual evolution is forbidden by Christianity. That's a huge no no.

I disagree. Tossing someone into an environment that has grave risks and merely 'hoping' that they just happen to luck out and make good choices isn't a very wise thing to do, IMHO.

It is not just luck. All humans can be helped if they fight the good fight. There is much more to it than luck.

Nope. Sorry. "Fighting the good Fight" is forbidden in Christianity, at least in terms of obtaining salvation. You can fight the good fight to the day you die, but if you haven't asked Christ for undeserved amnesty for having LOST this fight you go straight to hell.

The only way to obtain salvation in Christianity is to confess that you cannot win the fight against evil. Only when you confess that you are the source of evil can you obtain undeserved amnesty through Christ.

If you refuse to confess that you are the source of evil you will be condemned on charges of arrogant pride.

Think about Adolph Hitler (one of God's Children), not only did this child fall prey to the hazards of this world, but according to what most Christians believe he was then cast into an eternal hell of torture.

What kind of a parent was God to Hitler. Huh? Not a good parent at all.

You are forgetting about free will. Not only are people free, some insist on being free on their own terms; some are determined to be evil.

You are forgetting that your God necessarily DESIGNED Hitler.

Have you already forgotten that you have rejected evolution as a natural process?

You're stuck with a Hitler that was DESIGNED by God. So whatever Hitler turned out to be can only be God's fault.

Not only this, but if Hitler wasn't raised properly, this was also God's fault for not seeing to it that Hitler had decent and proper mentors.

Same is true for kids who had parents who couldn't give them much of anything. In fact, history shows that criminal behavior tends to breed at a far higher rate in places where children are raised by very poor families.

That's a moot point. But you are talking about ordinary crime. Some of the most evil people were not deprived at all...

Ordinary crime? Give it up. Clearly any argument that wealthy people are more likely to become criminals than poor people is nonsense.

You can't argue that a perfect world is impossible and claim to be supporting Christianity in the same breath.

Perfection is eternal and infinite. A material world cannot be such and was not meant to be.

So then why bother with a physical world at all?

Why not just stick with the non-material heaven?

If evil can only exist in a physical world, and a non-material existence is perfect, then what would be the point in creating a physical world in the first place?

There would be not point to it at all.

Also, where would Satan have come from in this apologetic view?

You apology requires than an evil Satan couldn't have been born of the spiritual world. So Satan could not have been a fallen angel. Satan could only have been a product of a physical world that was already the source of corruption. In that sense even Satan couldn't have been blamed for the impossible situation he was thrown into.

With all of your apologizing for this God all you have managed to do is show why this God would have no reason to create a physical world in the first place.

He should have just stuck with his non-material spiritual world. Why bother creating a physical world that is already known to be corrupt to begin with. And then to toss unwary spirits into that physical world and BLAME them for being in that predicament would be even more horrendous.

You apologies for this God make no sense.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 123 by Divine Insight]

But that kind of secular definition of "good" and "evil" doesn't require a jealous God who condemns people to hell if they refuse to believe in him and worship the religion that lays claim to owning him.

Any human being exhibiting this behaviour would be condemned as being evil. Why should God get a pass?

[Goat]

Entropy is, on the simplest level, concerned with heat flow. For low entropy there must be a concentration of heat and a corresponding area of cold. As the heat flows from hot areas to cold areas that flow can be used to do work. Entropy has to do with the amount of work that potentially exists in a system. Where heat is in equilibrium there is high entropy and no work can be done.

It is obvious that, in the universe, there is not complete entropy because heat flow is available. So why do you say there is no heat flow in eternity? The universe exists in eternity and eternity gave rise to low entropy in time. So why can't there be intelligence? Everything that is happening is happening now, in God. So there is low entropy in God.

Entropy and disorder are not the same thing https://www.science20.com/train_thought ... rder-75081

Well, the problem with your reasoning is the entropy is basically a classic physics issue (Ie. the macro universe), and according to many cosmological theories, the formation of the universe is a quantum event. Entropy does not appear to have any meaning in quantum scales.

[mgb]

The theology is extremely self-contradictory.

You are making the mistake of thinking I accept Christian theology in its totality. Not so. I accept the core teachings and even at that, I don't interpret them as you do.

But obviously it doesn't. Have you forgotten that in this theology mankind's character has constantly fallen into a state of total evil?

Not all humanity is evil. I would not say it is 'total'. The story of the flood is not part of my theology - it is too far back in history and how it arose is not at all clear. But, like I said, the bible is not a religion - I'm not a fundamentalist.

In Christianity no human is even permitted have successfully built any respectable character that has any merit. In Christianity all humans are permitted to do is come to Jesus and confess that they have no character worthy of salvation on its own merit and beg Jesus to give them undeserved amnesty via the mercy of Grace.

So this theology makes absolutely no claim that this world was designed to "Build Character". According to this theology building character is something that no human can ever achieve. It's taboo to even suggest that a mortal man has built sufficient character to merit his own salvation.

The gospels make it very clear that 'accepting Jesus' is not sufficient. Many Christians today believe that all they have to do is accept Jesus and they are saved. Jesus said 'It is not those who cry 'Lord, Lord' but those that do the will of my Father.' There are many statements in the gospels that make it clear that only a virtuous life pleases God. Salvation is not automatic.

a jealous God who condemns people to hell if they refuse to believe in him and worship the religion that lays claim to owning him.

I don't believe God 'condems' anyone. They are self condemned by the weight of evil they have done. But even at that, Origen says they can still be redeemed.

Yes, a random element is required. But that's nowhere near the same as the process of evolution being an entirely random process.

The foundation of the theory is random mutations. Dawkin's apologies for this are mere sophistry. Natural Selection must wait until random events come up with the goodies, otherwise nothing happens.

Every human must fail in God's eyes and the only way to obtain eternal life in his heaven is by asking for undeserved amnesty, NOT by demonstrating character

That is not what the gospels say. They say we must carry our cross and enter the 'narrow gate'. A Christian life must demonstrate virtue. Anyone who says otherwise is not reading the gospel attentively.

And what will heaven be like? Will there be suffering and evil in heaven? If not, then clearly worlds can exist that do not contain suffering and evil. Thus proving that suffering and evil are not required to have a meaningful existence.

Maybe they are not but they exist and the fact that evil exists underlines the folly of people's greed and wickedness. Evil exists and God uses it to warn humanity of where further rebellion leads.

If the purpose is to live in a heavenly paradise that could have been achieved straight-away.

Maybe, but creation is and must be free. Freedom is part of perfection. Creation needs to learn how to be.

In fact, according to Christian theology and words attributed to Jesus himself, the vast majority of humans will be condemned and only few will make it into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Those who are saved can rescue others from evil.

The only way to obtain salvation in Christianity is to confess that you cannot win the fight against evil.

Not without God's grace. Creation helps itself to escape from evil. God provides the means of escape.

You're stuck with a Hitler that was DESIGNED by God. So whatever Hitler turned out to be can only be God's fault.

He wasn't designed to be evil. He became evil because he was free to do so and ignored God's teachings.

If evil can only exist in a physical world, and a non-material existence is perfect, then what would be the point in creating a physical world in the first place?

There would be not point to it at all.

Also, where would Satan have come from in this apologetic view?

I'm not saying evil can only exist in physical terms. I am saying that perfection cannot be physically manifest. Satan is spiritual evil.

[mgb]

Well, the problem with your reasoning is the entropy is basically a classic physics issue (Ie. the macro universe), and according to many cosmological theories, the formation of the universe is a quantum event. Entropy does not appear to have any meaning in quantum scales.

The 'classical' universe is an emergent property of quantum spacetime. It is literally 'conjured up' out of quantum energy. Likewise with physical spacetime, it is part of this emergent geometry. It is, I think, helpful to see the situation in terms of TWO spacetimes; quantum and classical. If you think about it in these terms things get more fucused.

I have heard scientists talking about how time is dependent on the 'arrow of entropy' if you will. But which time? Quantum (space)time or classical time? I think it is a mistake to think time is created by the flow of heat. Classical time is a geometric construction and just because the 'arrow of entropy' is, by and large, pointing in the same direction as the arrow of time, does not mean they are the same thing. There is a lot of fuzzy thinking around this issue and it is necessary to realize that there are two spacetimes.

[Divine Insight]

The theology is extremely self-contradictory.

You are making the mistake of thinking I accept Christian theology in its totality. Not so. I accept the core teachings and even at that, I don't interpret them as you do.

I have no problem with this. If you literally reject the Bible then as far as I'm concerned you aren't talking about the Biblical God anyway. And even your "Jesus" would be nothing more than your own personal fabrication of what you would like for Jesus to be.

This is, in fact, what almost all Christians do. They create their own personal Jesus and think that this qualifies as "Christianity". And most of them aren't even interested in what Yahweh might have done in the OT. They'll either deny it by claiming that they can "twist" what the Bible literally says into something entirely different by pretending that they have reinterpreted it to mean something completely opposite to what it actually says.

At this point we aren't even talking about the same things when we talk about "Christianity" because I'm talking about what the Bible has to say about it, and you are talking about what you wish it would have said instead.

So we aren't even talking about the same thing.

I've known this from the very beginning.

But obviously it doesn't. Have you forgotten that in this theology mankind's character has constantly fallen into a state of total evil?

Not all humanity is evil. I would not say it is 'total'. The story of the flood is not part of my theology - it is too far back in history and how it arose is not at all clear. But, like I said, the bible is not a religion - I'm not a fundamentalist.

Fine. As far as I'm concerned you've just renounced the Bible as being a dependable source of any description of "God". Therefore what you are talking about is NOT the Biblical God.

Instead you have invented your own idea of what you would like for God to be like.

That's fine. But calling that "Christianity" is quite misleading, IMHO.

As far as I'm concerned you've already rejected Christianity and have instead invented your own theology of what you would like to believe.

You're certainly not alone in that. This is probably what 99% of "Christians" actually do.

In Christianity no human is even permitted have successfully built any respectable character that has any merit. In Christianity all humans are permitted to do is come to Jesus and confess that they have no character worthy of salvation on its own merit and beg Jesus to give them undeserved amnesty via the mercy of Grace.

So this theology makes absolutely no claim that this world was designed to "Build Character". According to this theology building character is something that no human can ever achieve. It's taboo to even suggest that a mortal man has built sufficient character to merit his own salvation.

The gospels make it very clear that 'accepting Jesus' is not sufficient. Many Christians today believe that all they have to do is accept Jesus and they are saved. Jesus said 'It is not those who cry 'Lord, Lord' but those that do the will of my Father.' There are many statements in the gospels that make it clear that only a virtuous life pleases God. Salvation is not automatic.

I totally agree with you. However, Paul clearly did not. In fact, Paul makes a very clear decree that no one can merit their own salvation lest they will be able to boast. He demands that it's a free gift of grace.

If you could earn your own salvation there would be no need for Jesus to have been crucified on your behalf.

a jealous God who condemns people to hell if they refuse to believe in him and worship the religion that lays claim to owning him.

I don't believe God 'condems' anyone. They are self condemned by the weight of evil they have done. But even at that, Origen says they can still be redeemed.

You seem to be forgetting that Christianity has nothing at all to do with committing evil. Christianity is all about recognizing this specific God. The first of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". What in the world would that have to do with evil? Absolutely nothing.

John 3-16-18 basically says that if you don't believe Christ is the Son of God you are condemned already.

What would not believing that Christ is the Son of God have to do with evil? Absolutely nothing.

Christianity tossed evil out a long time ago. It's all about professing Christ to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It's a man-made religion that demands that if you don't worship this religion you'll be condemned.

No decent God would ever create a religion like that.

Yes, a random element is required. But that's nowhere near the same as the process of evolution being an entirely random process.

The foundation of the theory is random mutations. Dawkin's apologies for this are mere sophistry. Natural Selection must wait until random events come up with the goodies, otherwise nothing happens.

So? That still doesn't mean that the process is random. When a random mutation provides something useful it is because of the usefulness of that mutation that the organism survives better to reproduce. So it's not randomness that's "driving" the process. Randomness merely allows the process to move forward.

Every human must fail in God's eyes and the only way to obtain eternal life in his heaven is by asking for undeserved amnesty, NOT by demonstrating character

That is not what the gospels say. They say we must carry our cross and enter the 'narrow gate'. A Christian life must demonstrate virtue. Anyone who says otherwise is not reading the gospel attentively.

Then apparently Paul didn't read the gospel attentively.

Do we toss Paul out on his ear then?

We've already tossed out the Great Flood and much of the OT. Now we need to toss out Paul. We're not going to have much left by the time we're done.

Not only this but your idea is that people do indeed need to EARN their salvation by merit of their own virtue.

Again, the moment you have people earning their own salvation you no longer need Jesus to be their penal substitute and offer them salvation through grace.

So you're changing the original ideas of this religion quite dramatically.

And what will heaven be like? Will there be suffering and evil in heaven? If not, then clearly worlds can exist that do not contain suffering and evil. Thus proving that suffering and evil are not required to have a meaningful existence.

Maybe they are not but they exist and the fact that evil exists underlines the folly of people's greed and wickedness. Evil exists and God uses it to warn humanity of where further rebellion leads.

But see here you are remaining in the camp that "God must exist".

In other words, you are saying, "Look there is evil in the world, therefore it must somehow be useful to God". But that doesn't follow. It could simply be that there is no such thing as a God. Then the so-called "evil" in the world is really nothing more than the natural way things are and "evil" is nothing other that those things that humans disapprove of.

No God required.

Instead you look at things we disapprove of and say, "Hey they must be useful to God or they wouldn't exist". You're putting the cart before the horse.

If the purpose is to live in a heavenly paradise that could have been achieved straight-away.

Maybe, but creation is and must be free. Freedom is part of perfection. Creation needs to learn how to be.

But know we're back to a very circular Christian apology.


Free Will is the culprit for evil.
It is because we have free will that we can make evil choices.
So this is the apology for why evil exists in the first place.

But now you are claiming that Freedom is part of perfection.
Therefore Free Will cannot be the cause of evil.

So this doesn't work.

Not only this, but if this were the Biblical Story when didn't Jesus simply make this clear. And why would we need Jesus to be our sacrificial penal substitute.

Not only this but Paul would then be 100% wrong.

If learning how to properly use free will is the only way to be granted entrance into heaven then everyone who goes to heaven could boast that they go there because they had personally learned how to responsibly control free will.

None of these things are permitted in Christianity. This is simply not part of Christian theology. There is nothing in Christianity that says that it's about a God who is expecting humans to learn how to responsibly use free will.

That's simply not what this theology is about.

In fact, according to Christian theology and words attributed to Jesus himself, the vast majority of humans will be condemned and only few will make it into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Those who are saved can rescue others from evil.

Just think how ridiculous that is. This would mean that God basically playing a crap shoot with human souls. In fact, in this scenario you can't even depend on Jesus to save you because you'd need to allow for another moral human to save you.

Talk about boasting in heaven! Paul would roll over in his grave.

Now you not only have people being able to boast that they saved themselves due to their own virtue, but now you are giving them the ability to be able to boast that they have saved other humans that GOD HIMSELF would have otherwise condemned.

You'd have mere humans saving people that God would have otherwise condemned had it not been for the intervention of a human evangelism, or whatever.

In fact, this is why the very concept of evangelism is itself absurd.

The only way to obtain salvation in Christianity is to confess that you cannot win the fight against evil.

Not without God's grace. Creation helps itself to escape from evil. God provides the means of escape.

But you seem to be forgetting that it was this God himself who put these humans into this impossible predicament. He would then owe each and every one of them grace, automatically without demanding that they beg for it. In fact, making them beg for it would be an act of evil itself.

You're stuck with a Hitler that was DESIGNED by God. So whatever Hitler turned out to be can only be God's fault.

He wasn't designed to be evil. He became evil because he was free to do so and ignored God's teachings.

He didn't ignore God's teachings. God commanded men to kill heathens. Jesus declared that not on jot or on tittle shall pass from law. So God's commandment to kill heathens has been endorsed by Jesus. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge God and rejects God's Son is a heathen. Therefore God teaches us to kill the Jews.

Do you think this is "twisted"? Perhaps so. However, the fact is that it can all be backed up by scripture. Every single part of it.

So Hitler could indeed believe that he was actually doing the will of God and following God's teachings. The Jews were heathens who rejected Christ. According to the Christian Gospels the Jews were even guilty of crucifying Christ.

You are aware that the Gospels do not claim that the Romans crucified Christ. The Gospels clearly have Pontius Pliate exonerating Jesus and finding no fault in him. Pilate washed his hands of the whole affair and handed it over to the Jewish Chief Priests who saw to the crucifixion of Jesus.

So Hitler had every scriptural reason to see the Jews as heathens who had rejected God, and therefore must be killed by God's own commandment.

For all we know Hitler may have been one of God's most obedient servants.

If evil can only exist in a physical world, and a non-material existence is perfect, then what would be the point in creating a physical world in the first place?

There would be not point to it at all.

Also, where would Satan have come from in this apologetic view?

I'm not saying evil can only exist in physical terms. I am saying that perfection cannot be physically manifest. Satan is spiritual evil.

But you were attempting to use the physical world as an explanation for why evil exists. But now you are backtracking and suggesting that evil can exist in a non-material spiritual world as well.

If that's the case, then again, "Why bother with a physical world at all?"

Clearly if Satan, as a purely non-material spiritual being, could become "evil" then everything required to test whether people might become evil would have already existed in the non-material spiritual world.

No need to create a physical world at all.

That was the whole point.