Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Hollie]

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I was down before you dishonestly changed them.

It was a hack move, and sealy warned of it before you even did it.

You went from the idea of god exists in our brains, to the idea of god is "biologically hardwired" in our brains.

Then, when I called you on it, you said there's no difference.

That's not me back pedaling, that's you reaching and - subsequently - lying about it and lying about me. And I still await your apology, but I'm sorry as long as you carry on your charlatan snake oil ways, I will continue shitting on your existence.

I explained that to you, GT: the difference between the kind of knowledge that latently adheres to our minds via organic logic and the knowledge we acquire about existents outside our minds in nature. But you just pretend that explanation and the distinction doesn't exist. Poof Magic. Where did it go? Dude.

 

[Hollie]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?

It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.

 

[Hollie]

I was down before you dishonestly changed them.

It was a hack move, and sealy warned of it before you even did it.

You went from the idea of god exists in our brains, to the idea of god is "biologically hardwired" in our brains.

Then, when I called you on it, you said there's no difference.

That's not me back pedaling, that's you reaching and - subsequently - lying about it and lying about me. And I still await your apology, but I'm sorry as long as you carry on your charlatan snake oil ways, I will continue shitting on your existence.

I explained that to you, GT: the difference between the kind of knowledge that latently adheres to our minds via organic logic and the knowledge we acquire about existents outside our minds in nature. But you just pretend that explanation and the distinction doesn't exist. Poof Magic. Where did it go? Dude.

That's a lot of backtracking and sidestepping for your failed argument.

Lipstick on a pig?

 

[Hollie]

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?

It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?

It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?

No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more. I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural knowledge. For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide? Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events cannot be gleaned from these things. But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence. The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.

 

[BreezeWood]

God did not create "Evil"

God didn't have to create evil.

Evil exists in the absence of good.
Like darkness exists in the absence of light.
Like cold exists in the absence of heat.

boss: God didn't have to create evil.

that affirms what I said, Bossy and also you just shot down the seven things in agreement - "have" to ...

mdr is a sinner - you accuse him of nogood, the abundance of which is just "reduced" ?


by the way those other things also exist, you just do not believe it.

.

 

[Hollie]

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?

It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?

No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?

 

[amrchaos]

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more. I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural knowledge. For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide? Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events cannot be gleaned from these things. But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence. The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

Nature (God). Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

This is in terms of 'God created the laws"

If God created the laws, did he list all of them and hand it to us? Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?


Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?

I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes. Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?

It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?

No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?

No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law. And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.

 

[Hollie]

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?

It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?

No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?

No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law. And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.

Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.

Why did your gawds create evil? Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?

 

[amrchaos]

I always get a kick out of that.

If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?

How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?

 

[sealybobo]

They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary. That's DS's point.

That's awfully close minded.

It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific. These things are logically true. If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds. An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.

They do not all follow.

For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.

We humans were frightened, superstitious creatures who hated not knowing things. We didn't know what created our universe and we don't know what happens when we die. So we came up with god. So humans have always wondered this question. And we may never know the answers to these questions. But again, humans hate not knowing. So it is sort of hard wired into us that we want to believe that something made us. Or we can't believe this is all by accident.

And seeing as how it has been passed on to us from generation to generation, maybe it has been "hardwired" into us.

But today you don't have to be a christian in America and we see more and more people are waking up. More and more young people are turning away from religion. Why? They are too smart. They have been Enlightened with science. Its why religion hates science so much.

Next time they get really sick, instead of going to the hospital, they should go to church and see where that gets them. I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me and they can pray.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more. I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural knowledge. For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide? Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events cannot be gleaned from these things. But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence. The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.

who created absence

Does absence need creating?

LOL!

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.

Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?

I'm not there with ya bruv.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

This is in terms of 'God created the laws"

If God created the laws, did he list all of them and hand it to us? Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?

Is it possible? I suppose... although it doesn't follow, as that would require that there are things which were not here, coming. Which could happen I guess... particularly with the apocalypse approaching and all.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I always get a kick out of that.

If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?

How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?

The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent. God's right there in you as he is in all of us.

 

[amrchaos]

I always get a kick out of that.

If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?

How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?

The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent. God's right there in you as he is in all of us.

The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a clear and precise manner so that I can know God. The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.

Maybe God does not care that I don't know God? Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?

Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between

That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.

According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations. I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.

I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.

Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.

 

[G.T.]

I was down before you dishonestly changed them.

It was a hack move, and sealy warned of it before you even did it.

You went from the idea of god exists in our brains, to the idea of god is "biologically hardwired" in our brains.

Then, when I called you on it, you said there's no difference.

That's not me back pedaling, that's you reaching and - subsequently - lying about it and lying about me. And I still await your apology, but I'm sorry as long as you carry on your charlatan snake oil ways, I will continue shitting on your existence.

I explained that to you, GT: the difference between the kind of knowledge that latently adheres to our minds via organic logic and the knowledge we acquire about existents outside our minds in nature. But you just pretend that explanation and the distinction doesn't exist. Poof Magic. Where did it go? Dude.

Umm, yes you're agreeing there's a difference thus agreeing you completely changed the meaning of one of the 'seven things' or else you later caught it and had to clarify.

You changed something. Not gt. Get it right.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?

No, it is not. We are not talking model-creation here. We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.

Concerning Model Creation: The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess. We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.) Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can construct improved models of the electron through logic.

armchaos: Following up from this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10067005/

With that said: What the normal characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics are ≠ the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics are abnormal, irrational or incomprehensible.

That just doesn't follow.

What is a normal characteristic?

Answer: whatever the normal characteristic is for any given thing, for an given A: A = A, the law of identity, as distinguished from any other given thing, NOT (A = NOT-A), the law of contradiction. Things are what they are.

Your notion would be an arbitrarily subjective assessment of things that (1) assumes the current lack of a unifying theory = actual incoherence and that (2) the apparent characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics have primacy over the perfectly rational characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics, when in fact, foundationally, the order of primacy is the converse.

The fact of the matter is that we now know enough about the connection between these two levels, as we get ever-closer to a unifying theory, that it's precisely because phenomena at the subatomic level behave as they do, we have stability and solidity at the Newtonian level of physics!

The various constituents of subatomic physics are what they are and do not contradict the various constituents of the Newtonian level of physics. A: A = A.

We are not assuming any model of incomprehensibility at all, and today we do not begin with our apparent perspective at the Newtonian level of physics. We begin at the foundational, subatomic level of physics and go from there. Why? Because we know better today: the physics at the subatomic level precede the former in the order of cause-and-effect origin and necessity.

Neither our lack of knowledge nor the points at which the various, explanatory theories breakdown = the breakdown of the foundationally immutable laws of organic thought. They hold. The calculi of quantum physics are perfectly rational and comprehensible, and we learn more and more each day as we close the gap in our understanding between the points of breakdown.

Actually, these points of "breakdown" from the perspective of our current store of knowledge are not surprising at all, as the various systems of physics for the cosmos, individually and collectively, are doing things that serve to hold the whole together. We know this to be true, for while we may not know the details that close the gaps between the various systems of physics within the larger system, we've done the math about what would happen if any one of the given systems of physics were removed from the whole. . . Bad news. Everything collapses. In other words, we know there's a perfectly rational, unifying physics for the whole.

As many have observed, the cosmos is a complex proof, just like the complex proofs in calculus, consisting of a multiple number of theorems/proofs, each arising from it's own premise, within the grand, all-inclusive theorem/proof resting on the foundational premise for the whole. We're working on the cosmological proof. That’s all.

As for virtual particles, appearing and disappearing, perhaps even popping in and out of existence as far as we can tell from our perspective of things, or subatomic particles occupying up to an infinite number of places simultaneously, what about these phenomena, precisely, causes you to think that they defy a creation model?

I don't see that at all. On the contrary, I think these things and the dynamics of the quantum vacuum as a whole have profound transcendental implications!