How can a good God allow suffering

@fresco,

Sure would've been nice if you backed up your statements with some sort of logical argument.

Why do you think it's nonsense ?

Do you think Lloyd should be teaching that nonsense to college students ?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

This is my last comment to you because you don't seem to have a clue what science is ahout. Nor was the quoted comment 'mine' even though I sympathise with its mode of production.
Lloyd himself admitted that he is simply attempting to explore 'an analogy'. That is a common technique in science for generating observational situations which may not otherwise have not been thought of. For example, the heliocentric solar system was originally applied to 'picture' atomic structure. It yielded exploration and data using the maths of elliptical orbits. That has now been superceded as too simplistic.
Science is about attempts to predict and control evolving aspects of our shifting view of 'the universe'. It is about 'what works'.
IT IS NOT ABOUT ULTIMATE TRUTH. Only religionists look for that 'crock of gold at the end of a rainbow'.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Re: brianjakub (Post 6728902)
Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote.

Quote:brianjakub

Quote:
If the only thing that physically existed, at this time, is this singularity contained in one perfect universe wide particle (which must be objectively perfect because it is the only physical thing with nothing to compare it to). And, the intelligence to manipulate it (God), exists in this one simple perfect particle, then this fulfills your requirement that the creator of the universe must be simple.

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?

I agree that one implication could be that he created himself but, that is not completely logical.

We are assuming that the universe had boundaries before the Big Bang and is contained inside a particle. There could have been a time with no boundaries which best could be described as a single particle of infinite size. If that was true there would be no inside or outside of the particle we are calling the universe.

Then all that exists is space and an intelligence with the, "choice should I create a universe by dividing the space into quantum particles and atoms by introducing spin to differentiate one particle (piece of space) from another or not?"

Quote:

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

If this Intelligence is separate from the physical universe and is capable of existing without any structure to the universe then I believe Dualism in metaphysics is the only philosophical point of view that can be logical here because, that is the only way an Intelligence that created matter could exist before matter.

If that is true, that intelligence must logically have an innate ability to organize the empty space into quantum which by their nature store information (words). The alphabet used in forming these words and letters would be the patterns we observe in quantum mechanics. (All ions of each type of atom have the same number of quarks, anti-quarks, electrons and positrons.)

So if one considers dualism as a possible explanation of the mind and body and in some categorical way they are separate from each other, and that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical in nature., an Intelligence that has the ability to put space into order doesn't necessarily need physical order to space to exist. It just has to have the ability to "think and do" to exist.

The only thing this intelligence needs to organize space into matter for, is so it can chose to share its ideas as information in matter. But, nobody else will know this Intelligence exists till it creates another Intelligence and a universe with a quantum mechanical alphabet in which ideas can be stored and shared with the Intelligence it just created. Without a physical universe the "created intelligence" could not differentiate its ideas from the "creator" intelligence's ideas. So the desire to share an idea creates a logical need for a universe which provides the Creator of the universe with its first choice that will have physical consequences, "Should I create the physical universe or not"

Plus, if this Original Intelligence existed before matter existed and, this Intelligence had the ability to organize space into matter, then by definition it existed before there were any means to physically sense and measure time.

For that reason, I think it can be implied that the only characteristics the first Intelligence had to have to exist is the ability to think and do. And since those characteristics can exist outside a physical universe which is necessary for time to exist, it can be implied that the "Original and Simplest Intelligence" existed forever with the "ability" to create complexity.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

This is my last comment to you because you don't seem to have a clue what science is ahout. Nor was the quoted comment 'mine' even though I sympathise with its mode of production.

Thank you for giving me the last word. Though I do invite further comment from you.

Quote:

Lloyd himself admitted that he is simply attempting to explore 'an analogy'. That is a common technique in science for generating observational situations which may not otherwise have not been thought of.

Quote:

ANALOGY
LOGIC
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
synonyms: similarity, parallel, correspondence, likeness, resemblance, correlation, relation, kinship, equivalence, similitude, metaphor, simile
"there's a thinly veiled analogy between his fiction and his real life"

Computers are famous for being able to do complicated things starting from simple programs.- Seth Lloyd

I would argue that the analogy works because the universe and a computer program are so similar. Both contain information that is stored in hardware and, that hardware was created "for the purpose" of processing information by using algorithms. I think it can be argued that since both systems are so similar in how they use simple input to create complex outcomes, that it can be implied that both systems (the universe and an operating computer) require an intelligence to create the information (by making choices) to bring them into existence.

(It sure looks like Darwinian Evolution could be one of these algorithms farmerman.)

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

We are assuming that the universe had boundaries before the Big Bang and is contained inside a particle. There could have been a time with no boundaries which best could be described as a single particle of infinite size. If that was true there would be no inside or outside of the particle we are calling the universe.

This is very different from what you had posted earlier.

Quote:

If the universe existed as a single particle with no order to it. (a singularity) as the Big Bang theory suggests, then all that existed was a single particle that was quite dense containing everything necessary for our universe to exist except order.

You're making this up as you're going along.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

A: Why do you bother?

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

You're making this up as you're going along.

Yeah. I am not quoting from books. I am consolidating ideas from different sources to form a new comprehensive idea you and I can both develop and understand. What are you doing?

The big bang suggests a part of multiverse contracted and inflated to form our universe. That event would have formed one of the initial boundaries of an early multiverse that sometime previous to this might have had no boundaries or other universes. All this is speculative at best. I personally think that the only way the quarks, antiquarks, electrons and positrons we observe with their quantum spin properties had to be initiated by a quantum creation event by a single simple Intelligence and, that Intelligence existed before matter. (I also believe in quantum gravity and entropic gravity which require a structure to empty space made up of virtual particles that was established before matter to provide the underlying structure for the Higgs Boson and the Higgs Mechanism.)

The main point I am making is, "A logical argument (that agrees with some current models of physics and cosmology) can be made for simple, Omnipitent Intelligence that always existed."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

A: Why do you bother?

There are a lot of belief systems and theories (including atheism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

Quote:

Information theory approach
Main article: Information theory
In information theory, information is taken as an ordered sequence of symbols from an alphabet, say an input alphabet χ, and an output alphabet ϒ. Information processing consists of an input-output function that maps any input sequence from χ into an output sequence from ϒ. The mapping may be probabilistic or deterministic. It may have memory or be memoryless.[3]

As I pointed out earlier the establishment of spin in quatum particles as described in the Standard Model of quantum Mechanics is the alphabet and grammar used when storing the information we observe as the universe.

But mainstream science is taking a new view of the universe as Seth Lloyd https://able2know.org/topic/384507-16#post-6718326 and J. D> Bekenstien have proposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

Quote:

As a property in physics
Main article: Physical information
Information has a well-defined meaning in physics. In 2003 J. D. Bekenstein claimed that a growing trend in physics was to define the physical world as being made up of information itself (and thus information is defined in this way) (see Digital physics). Examples of this include the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light. Material information itself cannot travel faster than light even if that information is transmitted indirectly. This could lead to all attempts at physically observing a particle with an "entangled" relationship to another being slowed down, even though the particles are not connected in any other way other than by the information they carry.

The mathematical universe hypothesis suggests a new paradigm, in which virtually everything, from particles and fields, through biological entities and consciousness, to the multiverse itself, could be described by mathematical patterns of information. By the same token, the cosmic void can be conceived of as the absence of material information in space (setting aside the virtual particles that pop in and out of existence due to quantum fluctuations, as well as the gravitational field and the dark energy). Nothingness can be understood then as that within which no matter, energy, space, time, or any other type of information could exist, which would be possible if symmetry and structure break within the manifold of the multiverse (i.e. the manifold would have tears or holes).

But as fresco pointed out

Quote:

]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.[/b[/u]]

So in the preceding arguments I think I showed many scientists agree that, it is implied that the universe is made up of information and that information implies a Creator or Intelligent designer. And, it is logical to assume that Designer is Omnipitent and simple.

And with those characteristics in mind a search for a Designer that has those characteristics looks like a worthy and possibly heroic endeavor.

So, cicerone maybe you should humble yourself and assume the family you talk about so much, understands this same logic, and join them on that endeavor instead of looking down your nose and ridiculing the intelligence of your family members and other believers.

You do not have the intellectual high ground (and neither do I, we are both intelligent human beings) so, why do you think you don't see the logic believers do?

Could it be you won't bother to assume they could be right and you just look at them the way you want infrablue to respond to me?

Do you think it possibly has something to do with why an Omnipotent Intelligence that has the simple freedom to create a universe without suffering decided to allow another intelligence to have the freedom to introduce suffering?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I'm helping him clear up his illogic.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Quote:

You're making this up as you're going along.
Yeah. I am not quoting from books. I am consolidating ideas from different sources to form a new comprehensive idea you and I can both develop and understand. What are you doing?

I'm pointing out the illogic in your posts.

brianjakub wrote:

The main point I am making is, "A logical argument (that agrees with some current models of physics and cosmology) can be made for simple, Omnipitent Intelligence that always existed."

Your first explanation in support of this point was illogical.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Your first explanation in support of this point was illogical

What part and why?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Post # 6,728,349

InfraBlue wrote:

brianjakub wrote:
If the only thing that physically existed, at this time, is this singularity contained in one perfect universe wide particle (which must be objectively perfect because it is the only physical thing with nothing to compare it to). And, the intelligence to manipulate it (God), exists in this one simple perfect particle, then this fulfills your requirement that the creator of the universe must be simple.

To be a creator this god would have to exist outside of this simple perfect particle not inside of it. Something else would have had to create this god.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

So many gods; which one should we pick?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

If we have to pick, give me a deistic one.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I don't believe in any god. Everything in existence is the result of nature and evolution. There are too many gods in this world, and most are late-comers after the evolution of Homo sapiens. I also believe religion is an accident of birth. Most children follow the religion of their parents and/or culture. 4,200 religions
According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect.
List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Re: brianjakub (Post 6731679)

Post # 6,728,349
InfraBlue wrote:

brianjakub wrote:
If the only thing that physically existed, at this time, is this singularity contained in one perfect universe wide particle (which must be objectively perfect because it is the only physical thing with nothing to compare it to). And, the intelligence to manipulate it (God), exists in this one simple perfect particle, then this fulfills your requirement that the creator of the universe must be simple.

To be a creator this god would have to exist outside of this simple perfect particle not inside of it. Something else would have had to create this god.

If This singularity was boundless then you couldn't get outside it. I am assuming that at one time there was one empty space with no boundaries. Or in other words maybe the Big Bang is the initiation of the epoch of inflation that is occurring in the part of the universe we currently live in but, it is not the initiation of the order established in the entire universe before there were boundaries such as quarks and matter that divided that universe up into orderly parts.

I am assuming that there was a completely simple universe at the beginning and the Big Bang might have occurred at the beginning but, I think I can show, it occurred some time later.

The reason is, the big bang singularity of infinite density is rather illogical. I don't think anything inside a boundary can be infinitely anything. To measure density one has to have boundaries to compare the density in one part of the universe to another because density is the units of stuff per unit of volume. without boundaries how do you compare volume or the amount of stuff. You cannot have infinitely small volumes because the boundaries would touch each other making it no longer a volume and secondly, there would be no room for the stuff that is being packed into an infinitely smaller volume.

In other words, boundaries do not apply to infinity. That makes the Big Bang theory as suggested by science in definition 2. below, illogical.

Quote:

sin·gu·lar·i·ty
/ˌsiNGɡyəˈlerədē/Submit
noun
1.
the state, fact, quality, or condition of being singular.
"he believed in the singularity of all cultures"
synonyms: uniqueness, distinctiveness
"the singularity of their concerns"
2.
PHYSICS•MATHEMATICS
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

So, the issue with the logic of my original statement is partially due to the fact that I didn't clarify the lack of logic in the Singularity of the big bang. And partially due to the fact that this is my lack of ability in explaining something complex.

Anyway, without boundaries and order, there could be no matter in it to become infinitely dense. Matter implies boundaries. Boundaries require there is an inside of a quark and an outside of a quark which, implies there is a boundary at the surface of the quark. And the same is true for atoms, planets, and universes.

All spaces have boundaries that are defined by the direction the space inside the boundary is spinning relative to the space inside the other boundaries (or groups of boundaries) in that particle or universe.

If the universe had no entropy (one infinite space with the same density everywhere) then density and time are irrelevant because there is no way to compare one part of space with another.

I am suggesting that it takes intelligence to put order in space by introducing
boundaries and spin which then allow us to compare densities in space and matter. This introduces the ability to compare one piece of the universe to another. ( The inside of a proton to the outside of a proton, and the inside of an atom to the outside). This allows patterns to develop (Which are known as quantum mechanics where all quarks, electrons and atoms of the same ion are the same.) These patterns we now recognize as the complex information stored in matter.

I think it logical to assume that these boundaries and patterns did not just appear without Intelligence making a decision to put in the boundaries and spin. And, I think it is just as logical to assume there is no such thing as infinite density.

What do you think?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

JMHO: Space is boundless. Matter exists. Humans will never know the extent of space.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

What do you think?

In regard to your assertions, I think you could have left it at a "simple, Omnipitent Intelligence that always existed," and avoided the contradictions.

In regard to what I think, this Omnipotent Intelligence is unnecessary. The universe and or the process that's behind it could just as well have always existed, eliminating any middleman omnipotent intelligence.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

All processes happen in sequence. Beginning to end. How can a process not have a beginning.

Quote:

The universe and the process behind it could just as well have always existed.

That doesn't seem very logical to me. Could you explain how logical .

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

You're assuming that all processes have a beginning and ending. There are mathematical models of the universe that indicate this possibility. Also, the measurements taken to calculate the beginning of the universe, about 10⁻¹¹ seconds, indicate that there was something occurring before that point in time.

1 Reply

How can a good God allow suffering

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know