God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens

[AgainstTheMachine]

According to christians god made lucipher.

He knew how lucipher would turn out and yet still went on to make him even though he did not have to and even though he knew what lucipher would do.

By any standards of responsibility that makes god responsible for what lucipher became.

If being the creator of the devil does not make you bad I don't know what does.

And anything that is bad and flows from that decision is traceable back to god.

So god is clearly responsible for all the bad stuff.

BTW please don't respond with the nonesense about free will. It is covered in the above.

.... I haven't read any responses .... YET ...​

Let this explain why the God of all knowledge created an angel called Lucifer.

Our spirit is sort of like a light.

It requires a positive and negative to become alive​

There has to be

• a down to an up
• an in to an out
• a left to a right
• a male to a female

a light with out a positive and negative does NOT illuminate ... and as such neither does the spirit called life.

It's really simple if you don't try to over analyze it!​

 

[bododie]

Actually RAM, Dawkins doesn't believe in God. At least I think that's what the Mullah told him to say. Anyway, I, being a person of faith look at the concept of evolution this way:
Evolution depends on the strong of the species surviving. Those who are weak, and can not or do not keep up with the rest of the world must be forfeit in order to allow the species to continue to evolve. We can weep about it, but evolution says it must occur. If they want to blame it on God, then maybe He's decided to be into evolution too. Surely that can't be bad....Lol.

 

[samsara15]

LOL.

Of course you can say that -- although I fail to see how your own limitation is somehow god's fault.

A joke is a joke. Lighten up.

Many minds have struggled over this issue, with no better rresolution than we have reached. One might even suspect that there ar some limits to both logics ability to describe reality and what human beings can achieve in discussion with each other.

 

[numinus]

A joke is a joke. Lighten up.

Many minds have struggled over this issue, with no better rresolution than we have reached. One might even suspect that there ar some limits to both logics ability to describe reality and what human beings can achieve in discussion with each other.

I'm light as a feather. I LOL didn't I?

Oh, btw, fopl and axiomatic set theory isn't an invitation to debate.

 

[samsara15]

Then you don't think God can violate the rules of logic and mathematics?

I have never been able to swallow either the Cosmological or Ontological Arguments...they both come across to me as merely sleight of hand.

It is also my oopinion that burdening the concept of God with omniscience, infinite compassion, and omnipotence over-loads the whole concept to the point where the idea of such a creature existing becomes no longer plausible.

Infinites tend to cause problems whereever they appear, so I am leery of invoking them or inferring their presence, and think it is a good idea to avoid doing so as much as possible.

 

[samsara15]

Actually RAM, Dawkins doesn't believe in God. At least I think that's what the Mullah told him to say. Anyway, I, being a person of faith look at the concept of evolution this way:
Evolution depends on the strong of the species surviving. Those who are weak, and can not or do not keep up with the rest of the world must be forfeit in order to allow the species to continue to evolve. We can weep about it, but evolution says it must occur. If they want to blame it on God, then maybe He's decided to be into evolution too. Surely that can't be bad....Lol.

It is not the necessarily the weak who do not survive, but merely those who are less suited to their environment. Such as the fierce saber-toothed tiger, the dire wolf, homo neanderthalis, and pehaps someday homo sapiens. The long lasting cockroach species, however, is a masterpiece of evolution, as is the ant.

 

[numinus]

Then you don't think God can violate the rules of logic and mathematics?

He created them out of nothing, did he not?

I have never been able to swallow either the Cosmological or Ontological Arguments...they both come across to me as merely sleight of hand.

They are consistent with fopl and axiomatic set-theory.

It is also my oopinion that burdening the concept of God with omniscience, infinite compassion, and omnipotence over-loads the whole concept to the point where the idea of such a creature existing becomes no longer plausible.

They are not concepts arbitrarily attached as an addendum to the argument nor fudging on its beautiful simplicity.

They are what logically follows.

Infinites tend to cause problems whereever they appear, so I am leery of invoking them or inferring their presence, and think it is a good idea to avoid doing so as much as possible.

We are talking of metaphysical concepts. It is unavoidable.

 

[samsara15]

Then don't you think Godel's theories place limits on the reliance we can have on both mathematics and logic?

Do we live in a universe that it not quite fully consistent?

In such a case, Is there some justification for irrationalism? Or at least, for some inconsistency in our ideas?

Are there limits to both knowledge and certainty?

 

[numinus]

Then don't you think Godel's theories place limits on the reliance we can have on both mathematics and logic?

Do we live in a universe that it not quite fully consistent?

In such a case, Is there some justification for irrationalism? Or at least, for some inconsistency in our ideas?

Are there limits to both knowledge and certainty?

That is correct.

The jist of godel's incompleteness theorem is that any logical conception is either complete or consistent, not both.

That's one of the reasons axioms don't require proof.

 

[Dr.Who]

Then don't you think Godel's theories place limits on the reliance we can have on both mathematics and logic?

Do we live in a universe that it not quite fully consistent?

In such a case, Is there some justification for irrationalism? Or at least, for some inconsistency in our ideas?

Are there limits to both knowledge and certainty?

I believe you are right that what we know about the universe does not allow us to say it is completely consistent.

I am not sure about the rest.

 

[samsara15]

That is correct.

The jist of godel's incompleteness theorem is that any logical conception is either complete or consistent, not both.

That's one of the reasons axioms don't require proof.

A few more scattered thoughts for you.

Cantor demonstrated that there are many levels of infinity. Metaphysics and philosophy only seem to deal with one level, to their detrement.

Turtles all the way down?

 

[numinus]

A few more scattered thoughts for you.

Cantor demonstrated that there are many levels of infinity. Metaphysics and philosophy only seem to deal with one level, to their detrement.

Turtles all the way down?

Correct me if I am wrong but goerg cantor is the russian(?) mathematician who developed what is now known as naive set theory.

Ok. What of it?

 

[Dr.Who]

Turtles all the way down?

You are welcome to believe that but Einstein said that he was forced by the evidence of science that there was a beginning. Maybe the establishment is wrong; they have been wrong before. But (for others of you and not for Samsara because S has been proven to be consistent and mature) when disagreeing it is important to do so for consistent reasons and not because one just likes one point of view versus another.

 

[samsara15]

People are neither good nor evil any more than chimpanzees are good or evil. People undeniably do bad things; people can be psychopathic, fir example.

However, typical human flaws, such as being selfish, for example, are not in the same league as psychotic behavior and are not what I would call 'evil', being merely typical hominid behavior. Human beings also lie, steal, and cheat on their spouses, and many other not-so-good social acts, which are yet more typical homind behavior. The emphasis that Judeo-Christian religions place on this concept of 'sin' seems much overblown. Humans beings act like the hominid species they are. Some of us act more for the general social well being of others than others.

 

[samsara15]

Correct me if I am wrong but goerg cantor is the russian(?) mathematician who developed what is now known as naive set theory.

Ok. What of it?

Yes, Georg Cantor was Russian; he is most famous for his work on infinities and transfinite numbers. The lowest level of infinity, he termed Aleph-Null. some call him the creator of Set Theory, which may be a bit strong. he was a very controversial figure. Since you were trained as an engineer, you have a very precise mind, and might find the following reference both fun and an interesting read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor