10 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, it isn't.
Well then , this eternity you speak of is God. Now you have to decide what kind of God? Personal , impersonal , loving , ammoral etc etc.
No, I don't.
I merely said the "concept of eternity was rational", not that something actually IS eternal.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzOk , let's say you're right . But your argument implies the universe has only a finite amount of energy , which once again doesn't sound eternal to me. I would expect an eternal universe to have limitless amounts of energy.
It's a lot more diffuse than it was billions of years ago, but the total energy is absolutely, completely, the same.
Think of it like a light bulb. As you get farther away then the intensity of the light goes down as a cube of the distance, since it is illuminating a sphere. As the matter got increasingly further away from the start point it would ...[text shortened]... though (unless the young earthers are right, then it's a lot closer than we think 😉 ).
10 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhy would being "eternal" have anything to do with the amount of energy that the "eternal" thing possesses?
Ok , let's say you're right . But your argument implies the universe has only a finite amount of energy , which once again doesn't sound eternal to me. I would expect an eternal universe to have limitless amounts of energy.
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe undeniable existence of evil needs to be reconciled with whatever worldview you hold -- this is what I call the Problem of Evil.
Why do you think this? The Problem of Evil requires a single omnipotent being whose actions cannot be challenged by another equivalent power. It also requires that being to be perfectly good.
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThanks; very confusing for my intermediate grasp of physics.
There is a distance between the nucleus and the area of greatest electron density within the first quantum shell; but there is electron density everywhere in the universe from every atom, actually. It's just very low far from the atom or very, very close to the nucleus. It's one of those things about quantum physics thats hard to wrap your brain aroun ...[text shortened]... nfusing. Here's some more info on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderHe IS the universe and does not exist separately from it. Whenever bad things happen to anything in the universe, they are, in effect, happening to him also.
Let me try to clarify. I'll restate the bare bones of the AFE (though I can't do it as well as bbarr obviously) and point out why it doesn't apply to a pantheistic "God":
The AFE takes as premises that there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God that creates the universe and exists apart from and separate from it. It then observes that ...[text shortened]... ng. This universe's existence is something he is experiencing as well as we are.
The inherent contradiction (and greatest problem IMO) is that he (or 'He' if you wish) is doing the 'bad' things to himself/Himself.
11 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Halitose(Shrug) Since "He" lacks foreknowledge, the most you can say is that "He" has set conditions that allow the possibility of something you (or I) might categorize as "bad" things. That seems like a rather trivial complaint.
[b]He IS the universe and does not exist separately from it. Whenever bad things happen to anything in the universe, they are, in effect, happening to him also.
The inherent contradiction (and greatest problem IMO) is that he (or 'He' if you wish) is doing the 'bad' things to himself/Himself.[/b]
EDIT: Of course, that assumes that "He" even had the power to set any conditions, something that is not required in a pantheistic view.
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are separating the action from the doer. God is doing ‘evil’. God is doing ‘good’. God is good/evil. There is no evil. There is no good. It shies away rather to far from reality for my liking.
(Shrug) Since "He" lacks foreknowledge, the most you can say is that "He" has set conditions that allow the possibility of something you (or I) might categorize as "bad" things. That seems like a rather trivial complaint.
11 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseSince you insist on viewing a "God" as a single entity outside of the universe itself, that, to you, is "reality". Your God seems very far from reality in my view; an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good entity that nonetheless allows massive amounts of suffering capped off by punishment meted out to vastly inferior creatures. And that Man on a tiny planet in an insignificant star system would be the most important part of this vast universe strains credulity as well. I think "reality" is the wrong tree for you to bark at.
You are separating the action from the doer. God is doing ‘evil’. God is doing ‘good’. God is good/evil. There is no evil. There is no good. It shies away rather to far from reality for my liking.
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseA dualist belief system is one way out of that dilemma.
[b]He IS the universe and does not exist separately from it. Whenever bad things happen to anything in the universe, they are, in effect, happening to him also.
The inherent contradiction (and greatest problem IMO) is that he (or 'He' if you wish) is doing the 'bad' things to himself/Himself.[/b]
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderEr... the reality of good and evil.
Since you insist on viewing a "God" as a single entity outside of the universe itself, that, to you, is "reality". Your God seems very far from reality in my view; an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good entity that nonetheless allows massive amounts of suffering capped off by punishment meted out to vastly inferior creatures. And that Man on a tiny plan ...[text shortened]... niverse strains credulity as well. I think "reality" is the wrong tree for you to bark at.
Don't forget we are discussing the Problem of Evil from a pantheistic view.