How can a good God allow suffering

As you eliminate designed things from the universe, the universe must logically get simpler. When, you get to a universe that has nothing in it it can't get any simpler than that, can it?

So if all you have is a simple universe with one Intelligence that has control over that one singularity and His only decision is, "should I use my intelligence and my ability to manipulate the universe to start adding order and complexity to it by dividing it into quantum sized particles by introducing spin.



Life in a physical universe is more complex than a single intelligence existing in a single universe made up of a singularity. You cannot keep making the universe infinitely simple. When you get to one intelligence in one singularity with one choice (should I create the universe or not?) you have come to the last designer in possibly a long list of designers (which includes you and I and all other beings that can create are included in that list). It is the most simple and it is the God that did it.

Where am I wrong?

You need to get over the fiction that god created everything. All God(s) were created by the imagination of men in different countries and cultures, some sooner than others. The Christian and Islam god are based on the Bible, go back to Greek and Egyptian mythologies. For confucianism (The philosopher Confucius (or Kongzi, c. 551 to c. 479 BCE) is the recognized founder of Confucianism. For Buddhism, go back to the history of India. Buddhism, founded in the late 6th century B.C.E. by Siddhartha Gautama (the "Buddha"), is an important religion in most of the countries of Asia. These are the basis for the major religions that are practiced in this world. Are they all right or all wrong? Take your pick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0

c.i. is correct.

By saying 'I am a Christian' ...an accident of birth please note...you are simply regurgitating the title of that volume of the word magic associated with your conditioned concept of Christianity. This man made artifice, with all its revisions and selective omissions, gives integrity to that socially aquired entity you call 'self'. It all amounts to parochial self validictory communal comfort blanket. Had you been born in another culture, the contents of the volume would differ and the blanket would be another color.

I don't comment on 'creation events' since 'creation' is only a meaningful concept for me with respect to humanesque behavior. Nor do I hold that the 'Big Bang' is the final view of the origin of what we call 'our universe', given current scientific discrepancies in some of its implications.

I am not a Christian because of birth. It is a philosophical believe based on logic and science.

I asked for your comments on the logic and the science behind my post. By showing your bigotry by choosing not to respond to my questions and my comments because of your pre-assumed reasons of my beliefs is disappointing.

I posted very little from the Bible the little i did is supported by science.

How about at least commenting on the video from the scientist at MIT.

Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote.



You seem to be referring to this manipulative intelligence as God.

He exists inside and outside of this perfect universe wide particle and he manipulates this perfect universe wide particle from within?

One implication is that he created himself. Another is that he manipulates this particle from within.

My question is: who "did" the God who "did" it?

No. I won't be commenting, MIT or no MIT. Elsewhere you will find I have commented on the work of Polkinghorne ( Cambridge atomic physicist turned Anglican priest) who correctly, in my view, holds the view that science has nothing to do with bible stories. His Christianity is based on seeking the origin of morality - an issue, unfortunately for him, perhaps explainable by evolution

As for 'bigotry', what could be more bigoted than the assumption that one version of one world religion has been priviledged with what it considers to be the "Truth" ? I say, with apologies to Shakespeare ..'a plague on all their houses'....and if that's 'bigotry' at least everyone gets fair shares !

You provided me with my good laugh for today. God's are not based on logic and science. It is based on faith. Science requires evidence. There is none to be found in the Christian god. As a matter of fact, the Christian god is similar to the Greek and Egyptian gods, born of a virgin birth, but they are mythological.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-jesus-simply-a-retelling-of-the-horus-myth/
http://www.dartmouthapologia.org/apologia/greek-mythology-and-the-christian-doctrine-of-god/

Answer me this if you can. Why did your god appear only 2000 years ago when Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years? http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens

Also, another Q. Do you believe in evolution?

This video is not about ID or Christianity, it is about information and how it is perceived. https://able2know.org/topic/384507-16#post-6718326

Have you watched it.



I assume nothing. I studied the data and learned that there was a need for and Intelligent Designer. I then determined what its characteristics needed to be and then found someone who fit them. Could you quit assuming why I believe what I believe and look at the hypothesis and the supporting data I present and comment on their validity?

What is wrong with my logic in my assuming the universe had no particles of matter at the beginning of its existence (That would be a singularity with no boundaries which, is the proposed initial state of the universe proposed by mainstream science)?

What is wrong with assuming that the simplest version of the universe and the designer that ordered it would be all that could have existed before spin and boundaries were introduce to store the information that the video by Seth Lloyd shows he observes?

It is easy to claim you have a superior understanding of the data but, you are not very believable if you don't back it up with an argument to support your claim.

I would prefer if you comment on my specific posts and why they aren't logical. Your comment is your opinion with no supporting data.

Your post is supporting data that all religions and myths have similar stories because they are telling the same story from different times in history (different points in the story) and from different cultural and personal points of view. They all point to a time in the past where men were god like (nephilum in the bible, gods of mythology etc. . .) and these god-like men were destroyed by some cataclysmic event by the true God of the universe and all that were left were men like us.

If they are all telling their version of the same story wouldn't you expect similarities?



Jesus stepped into the universe 2,000 years ago because that is where he needed to step into the process. He can't redeem the universe from evil and man's mistakes before they make them and ruin the universe. He couldn't fix it till it was broken. This is a learning process for mankind that is taking millions of years. That is my Christian belief that is supported by your data.

But, at least get this part of the story straight. The book of Genesis was compiled from oral traditions around 950 BC or about 3,000 years ago. All the stories before that were passed on orally which makes them nearly impossible to age but, I think it is safe to assume the stories were passed on orally from the times of the first men 200,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahwist
Quote:
Julius Wellhausen, the 19th century German scholar responsible for the classical form of the documentary hypothesis, did not attempt to date J more precisely than the monarchical period of Israel's history.[13] In 1938 Gerhard von Rad placed J at the court of Solomon, c. 950 BCE, and argued that his purpose in writing was to provide a theological justification for the unified state created by Solomon's father, David.[14] This was generally accepted until a crucial 1976 study by H. H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist ("The So-called Yahwist"), argued that J knew the prophetic books of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, while the prophets did not know the traditions of the Torah, meaning J could not be earlier than the 7th century.[15] A number of current theories place J even later, in the exilic and/or post-exilic period (6th–5th centuries BCE).[16]End Quote.


And, Genesis is telling about something that happened millions or billions of years before that. Here is how we know that.

The numbers 40 and 7 and 1,000 when refereed to by the Hebrews are symbolic phrases which mean as long as it takes. They did not have as many words as the modern languages of our times so, back then when somebody wanted to know how long it took and all that was known was that it took as long as necessary and, that it was a very long time, 40 or 7 or 1000 were used to say that.

The length of a day and a year in Genesis before the flood story is unknown but, if the bible is to loosely follow archaeological evidence it must be a lot longer than 24 hours. In the Gospel of Peter is evidence of this.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

I believe in evolution. I believe that life can evolve because it is designed to evolve. A simple design can do complicated things but simple designs are still designed.

Life is far from a simple design though. It is so complicated that we cannot replicate it with our intelligence. We are just beginning to understand how life adapts but we have not witnessed nor replicated macrevolution. When the changes become complex and sequential random introduction of new information is incapable of providing the new information correctly. That is what the evidence shows. That is why I believe that. Not because I am superstitious or my parents were Christian, or I "feel" the need for a God. I believe because the information had to come from an idea. All information does.

https://able2know.org/topic/384507-16#post-6718326

What do you think about Seth Lloyd's view portrayed in the video about the information contained in the universe? Seth Lloyd (born August 2, 1960) is a professor of mechanical engineering and physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He refers to himself as a "quantum mechanic".

No. You've not thought it through.
Look up the definition of 'information'. You will find it it is something like 'that which informs a choice between alternatives'. In other words the concept of 'information' already assumes the concept of 'a decision maker'.
There is no such thing as 'information' which is observer neutral, and the same goes for 'data'. It's perfectly possible to discard information theory as an aspect of what we currently call 'the universe'. 'Information' and 'Designer' are bedfellows.

True. And it's amusing that you would claim to throw out the former in an attempt to avoid the latter.

When you have to define the other's thoughts and arguments instead of making your own, you have effectively conceded.

In a past post, for example, you ere going on about how the Creator actually engineered it all to appear that fossils and life occurred the way it did to "inform us".

THAT ALONE needed lots of validation and evidence on its own but you just posted it as some kind of fact and kept running at the mouth with your worldview based upon (primarily) a denial of normal science .As I said several times, we dont have it all answered in science and we do correct theories as new facts arise. If something arises that even possibly points to ID, some lab will take it and run. So far, the only "Labs" that appear out there that maintain an ID view are NOT very objective if you notice. They will never accede to anything that does NOT agree with ID . and that aint science, that is a dogmatic .



Dont play others as fools while you split up your theistic side and your delving into th sccientific.

I know you will keep going with how Im doing the same. Ive just to remind you that the evolutionary theory has been strongly modified several times through history as more and more facts (some supportive and a few non-supportive) have made the theories grow and mature. ID is a natural outgrowth of Biblical Based Creationism and has only , in the last 20 years tried to attain some scientific respectability, mostly by trying to deny science . The base has always remained the same, not by discovery but by trict adherence to what the Discovery Institute was founded on, Fundamental Christianity.

Sounds like that one came out of the same asshole as "Love is never having to say youre sorry".
Try to engage based on facts please.

It's not so much "validation and evidence," but common sense. It's impossible to reconcile "creationism" with "science," although they try. When the Bible was written, they didn't have the scientific knowledge we have today starting with the age of earth.

So are you saying Seth Lloyd is incorrect in assuming that all the Atoms in the universe contain information?

I have no comment to make. The word 'information' is often used without thinking of its fundamental implications.

NB. Here's one comment by someone whose looked at Lloyd's stuff.