Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ben Masada

Things God Did Not Create

1,940 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker

So let's use logic (and I'm unashamedly stealing a premise from an episode of Star Trek I watched several years ago), and see if we can arrive at a single logical position. So the scenario - you're a space vessel stranded many years from home. You encounter a species that has the technology to instantly take you home. But they don't want to share that technology. Being an enlightened culture, you have a non-interference policy in place. Someone on the black market approaches you to sell the required technology. Your morals say no, but 60+ years is not something to ignore.

Now put yourself in the shoes of a First Officer. The Captain has taken the official policy route and ignored the offer of help. Now depending on the logic of the First Officer several options present themselves. Let's take just two as a case in point:

* Logical premise - the captain is bound to non-interference: therefore we should adhere to the Captain's wishes and follow orders!

* Logical premise - the captain is bound to non-interference: as such they had to follow procedure or else abandon their enlightened philosophy. The logical alternative is that the First Officer disobeys commands, and covertly steals the required technology by accepting help from the Black Market. The Captain can claim no knowledge of the event and maintain the status quo, worst case scenario discipline the underlings!

Two scenarios! Two different responses! Both logical, within the point of view of those who hold it. Which is more (or less) logical? What is your basis for such a position? It depends on the Captain, it depends on the First Officer, but both are logical extensions of the same premise.

So where does "truth" fit into such?

I like the example in the latest star trek movie where Kirk breaks the non interference policy to save Spock's life, then Spock dobs him in for doing so, causing him to lose his command. Who is ethically more correct, or were both equally correct to act as they did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Yes, logic is a process. Belief is a premise. Logic is an avenue...a process...for determining truth. A ship never returns...if the belief (premise) is faulty, then all logic surrounding that premise will also be faulty. So, If A is true: the world is flat....and a ship never returns, then the ship went over the edge...logical within the premise...but...the premise isn't true...so, logic will not bring one closer to the truth unless the premise is abandonded and Logic is used to ascertain the truth. One might say, if the ship goes over the edge, isn't it logical therefore to think that the water itself would be going over the edge, since the ship is in the water...and if that is true then, wouldn't it also be logical to think that eventually all the water would disappear over the edge?

Yes PA...Logic is a process. A process that leads one to a closer view of that which is true...but only if one is able to abandon the premise as absolute.

That was an awesome example. I use it often myself. It shows the gap in thinking of empiricism not necessarily that of logic. close analysis of physics performable right here on earth might teach us that other galaxies, expansion, and other things should exist, but all of it would be rejected in the epoc you are describing because of lak of physical proof not a gap in logic.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thyra

There are two thought schools that view the god's creation.

School #1 Says that god created the universe and left it to its own course without ever penetrating to what is happening now.

School #1 Says god created everything and still goes on as an active part in all the creation, penetrating and going on with its creation as it chooses.

it all depends on your personal point of view to decide which one is true. none can be proved or understood scientifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

So let's use logic (and I'm unashamedly stealing a premise from an episode of Star Trek I watched several years ago), and see if we can arrive at a single logical position. So the scenario - you're a space vessel stranded many years from home. You encounter a species that has the technology to instantly take you home. But they don't want to share that technology. Being an enlightened culture, you have a non-interference policy in place. Someone on the black market approaches you to sell the required technology. Your morals say no, but 60+ years is not something to ignore.

Now put yourself in the shoes of a First Officer. The Captain has taken the official policy route and ignored the offer of help. Now depending on the logic of the First Officer several options present themselves. Let's take just two as a case in point:

* Logical premise - the captain is bound to non-interference: therefore we should adhere to the Captain's wishes and follow orders!

* Logical premise - the captain is bound to non-interference: as such they had to follow procedure or else abandon their enlightened philosophy. The logical alternative is that the First Officer disobeys commands, and covertly steals the required technology by accepting help from the Black Market. The Captain can claim no knowledge of the event and maintain the status quo, worst case scenario discipline the underlings!

Two scenarios! Two different responses! Both logical, within the point of view of those who hold it. Which is more (or less) logical? What is your basis for such a position? It depends on the Captain, it depends on the First Officer, but both are logical extensions of the same premise.

So where does "truth" fit into such?

The Truth doesn't fit anywhere into either scenario because: neither one are true PA. Star Trek is a movie....the scenarios are not real...will never be real...and so the logic used in interpreting fiction is not really logic. It is just a brain puzzle with no consequence to the truth because it is all an example in the logic of fiction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

The Truth doesn't fit anywhere into either scenario because: neither one are true PA. Star Trek is a movie....the scenarios are not real...will never be real...and so the logic used in interpreting fiction is not really logic. It is just a brain puzzle with no consequence to the truth because it is all an example in the logic of fiction.

Both used logic though. Logic =/= Truth! That's all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

The Truth doesn't fit anywhere into either scenario because: neither one are true PA. Star Trek is a movie....the scenarios are not real...will never be real...and so the logic used in interpreting fiction is not really logic. It is just a brain puzzle with no consequence to the truth because it is all an example in the logic of fiction.

All logic is, at heart, a brain puzzle. (or a philosophical/mathematical way of thinking about a mental puzzle.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

All logic is, at heart, a brain puzzle. (or a philosophical/mathematical way of thinking about a mental puzzle.)

Yes...but what is the end result...preferably the solving of the puzzle...and the Puzzle Solved does equal Truth. Mere answers to the Puzzle based on logic that do not include truth are...illogical. Because...the puzzle is not solved until the truth of the puzzle is revealed. Logic leads us to Truth...otherwise...it is...illogic...or ill logic...(sick logic). No?

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Yes...but what is the end result...preferably the solving of the puzzle...and the Puzzle Solved does equal Truth. Mere answers to the Puzzle based on logic that do not include truth are...illogical. Because...the puzzle is not solved until the truth of the puzzle is revealed. Logic leads us to Truth...otherwise...it is...illogic...or ill logic...(sick logic). No?

The problem as I see it, is that some puzzles have many answers, that lead to different outcomes. These outcomes may be expected or they may be the result of a random variable or two. Thus two people can address the puzzle logically, but differently. Their success or failure may be the product of random chance, but that doesn't make their logic faulty.

My mum's in hospital right now. If I want to visit her the logical thing to do is to grab the car keys and drive up to see her. If a drunk driver coming the other way suddenly veers to my side of the road and runs into me, putting me in hospital, my attempt to see mum failed. Does that mean it was illogical to grab the car keys or drive up to see her?

If my next door neighbour were also driving into town would it be more logical to car pool and save fuel? It means one of us would be reliant on the other, to fit their schedule into the time constraints of the driver (if I want to spend 3 hours in hospital and the neighbour only one hour shopping, I've got to amend my schedule). But logically I could choose either to drive separately or car pool, and neither is faulty logic.

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

The problem as I see it, is that some puzzles have many answers, that lead to different outcomes. These outcomes may be expected or they may be the result of a random variable or two. Thus two people can address the puzzle logically, but differently. Their success or failure may be the product of random chance, but that doesn't make their logic faulty.

My mum's in hospital right now. If I want to visit her the logical thing to do is to grab the car keys and drive up to see her. If a drunk driver coming the other way suddenly veers to my side of the road and runs into me, putting me in hospital, my attempt to see mum failed. Does that mean it was illogical to grab the car keys or drive up to see her?

If my next door neighbour were also driving into town would it be more logical to car pool and save fuel? It means one of us would be reliant on the other, to fit their schedule into the time constraints of the driver (if I want to spend 3 hours in hospital and the neighbour only one hour shopping, I've got to amend my schedule). But logically I could choose either to drive separately or car pool, and neither is faulty logic.

Some puzzles do have many answers...and logic guides us to the 'best' answer for a particular puzzle. In your example...logic guides you to get in the car and drive. In this scenario the puzzle has many different possible answers. But in the area of absolutes...ie God, etc. There are not many possible answers. In this puzzle, the answer to the puzzle is called The Truth. There aren't 'many' truths to the question of Creation and God. The Truth may be hidden under so many layers that it may well be impossible to ever really 'know' the truth...but logic...in this sense, shows us what is Not Truth and therefore greatly increases our chances of actually finding Truth.

Edited by joc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Yes...but what is the end result...preferably the solving of the puzzle...and the Puzzle Solved does equal Truth. Mere answers to the Puzzle based on logic that do not include truth are...illogical. Because...the puzzle is not solved until the truth of the puzzle is revealed. Logic leads us to Truth...otherwise...it is...illogic...or ill logic...(sick logic). No?

No. Logic does not depend on finding THE truth; not even really on finding A truth.Only on using logical thinking to get from point a to point b.

Oh I see PA really answered this .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

No. Logic does not depend on finding THE truth; not even really on finding A truth.Only on using logical thinking to get from point a to point b.

Oh I see PA really answered this .

Okay. Please tell me what purpose is there in getting from Point A to Point B? Why not just hang out at Point A and schmoke a doobie? What is so special about Point B anyway? Oh wait...we were talking about solving problems. Point B is the 'truth'.

Example: Hmmm...I need to set this pile of wood on fire...hey...I have a great idea...I'll pour gasoline all over the wood and then I'll strike a match to it.

But wait>>>Logic would say: Uh, dude, if you strike a match close to the fire...the fumes may be such that you will also be engulfed in flames.

That would be Point B. the Point at which Logic reveals the truth of a particular problem. If truth is not an issue then...what is the purpose of logical thought process?

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Okay. Please tell me what purpose is there in getting from Point A to Point B? Why not just hang out at Point A and schmoke a doobie? What is so special about Point B anyway? Oh wait...we were talking about solving problems. Point B is the 'truth'.

Example: Hmmm...I need to set this pile of wood on fire...hey...I have a great idea...I'll pour gasoline all over the wood and then I'll strike a match to it.

But wait>>>Logic would say: Uh, dude, if you strike a match close to the fire...the fumes may be such that you will also be engulfed in flames.

That would be Point B. the Point at which Logic reveals the truth of a particular problem. If truth is not an issue then...what is the purpose of logical thought process?

Everyone starts at a point A.

To get to a point B in understanding, it is most effective to use a form of logical thought. If you do, point B will be a logical and understandable extrapolation of point A. If you do not, point B in your understanding could be anything. For example "I can walk six kilometres an hour. My nearest town is 50 kilometres away. Thus I can walk there in a bit over 8 hours"

That's a piece of logic and might well be accurate if you could sustain the same pace for 6 hours I tis useful because it tells you if you can do the walk in a day So you could extrapolate that knowledge and say, " If the walk takes 8 hours and I wish to do it in winter I will need to start at sunrise to do the walk in daylight, but in summer I could start at 10 am and still complete the walk in daylight. And so bit by bit you can plan and extrapolate. In eight hours I need to drink at least one litre of water which will weigh one kilogram when I start but nothing, when I finish and so on. Now it depends on whether that rate of water consumption is correct as to whether your conclusion about how much to carry will work out.

Now if Point A is correct, logic is the most likely form of thought to take you to a correct point B, although it is not infallible. But if your point A is incorrect, logic will also most likely lead you to an incorrect point B.

Logic won't help you with the problem of inflammable vapours unless you have prior knowledge about the flammable nature of these gasses. Hence, many people, knowing wet wood doesn't burn and petrol does, quite logically use petrol to start a fire and, as a consequence, blow them selves up. Another example which requires additional data or knowledge to resolve correctly is, " What is the most logical thing to do when caught outdoors in a violent thunderstorm?"

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Everyone starts at a point A.

To get to a point B in understanding, it is most effective to use a form of logical thought. If you do, point B will be a logical and understandable extrapolation of point A. If you do not, point B in your understanding could be anything. For example "I can walk six kilometres an hour. My nearest town is 50 kilometres away. Thus I can walk there in a bit over 8 hours"

That's a piece of logic and might well be accurate if you could sustain the same pace for 6 hours I tis useful because it tells you if you can do the walk in a day So you could extrapolate that knowledge and say, " If the walk takes 8 hours and I wish to do it in winter I will need to start at sunrise to do the walk in daylight, but in summer I could start at 10 am and still complete the walk in daylight. And so bit by bit you can plan and extrapolate. In eight hours I need to drink at least one litre of water which will weigh one kilogram when I start but nothing, when I finish and so on. Now it depends on whether that rate of water consumption is correct as to whether your conclusion about how much to carry will work out.

Now if Point A is correct, logic is the most likely form of thought to take you to a correct point B, although it is not infallible. But if your point A is incorrect, logic will also most likely lead you to an incorrect point B.

Logic won't help you with the problem of inflammable vapours unless you have prior knowledge about the flammable nature of these gasses. Hence, many people, knowing wet wood doesn't burn and petrol does, quite logically use petrol to start a fire and, as a consequence, blow them selves up. Another example which requires additional data or knowledge to resolve correctly is, " What is the most logical thing to do when caught outdoors in a violent thunderstorm?"

I agree with everything you have said. I guess there is logical thought to get from Point A to Point B...but is it really logical to think standing under a tree in a violent thunderstorm is the correct thing to do? Logic has to be more than getting from Point A to Point B.

But the vein of thought I am talking about is in the realm of God, Creation, etc. Now, you may say it is quite logical ...given the lack of knowledge for ancient men...to think a volcano is the voice of the Almighty...or that Thunder is the voice of God...I however, do not view that as logic. Within the construct of that view of logic, a person suffering from schizophrenia would be 'logically' going from Point A to Point B by following the instructions on how to fly off the cliff, given to him by his imaginary friend.

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Universal Being

Things God Did Not Create

Many people think that because God is the Supreme Creator of the Universe, He must have created all things. Among these peoples, we find especially those who have never read about anything in the realm of Physics. Believe me, I am not talking about Atheism, as I am personally a Theist myself, although not of the class of Theists who take everything literally in their interpretation of the Scriptures.

I felt about writing this thread when I was asked if God created sin. No, He did not; and here is the method or formula to identify what God has created and what He has not created. First, we must define what we want to know if God created it or not. Then, we must figure if the thing is or not a by-product of God's creation. What do I mean by a by-product of God's creation? Anything that comes about as a result of anything God has created. It was not created by God.

Let us start with sin, which was the reason for this thread. By definition, sin is the transgression of God's Law by man. Therefore, something between man and the Law. Nothing to do with God. Man creates sin, not God. And sin comes about as a result of man's ill-use of his freewill. Obviously, as man creates sin, with man is the power to end the sin he has created.

Let me bring to your attention samples of three other things God did not create because they constitute a by-product or an accident of matter. Energy, time and space. Oh yes, it's natural to get startled at this revelation.

God did not create energy. Energy is an accident of matter. A by-product of God's creation. How about time? This is an accident of motion. Time comes about as matter moves. There is no time in inertia. And for space, what is space? This is the limited distance between matter and matter. Therefore, an accident of matter at a certain distance from each other.

Now, that we know that not everything God created, you have got a little wiser to use the method on a few of other things.

Good luck!

If you beleive that God is omipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then it has to follow that God actually knew before he created the universe how thing would turn out .

He knew man would fall down in sin and that mankind as a whole would not be able to live up to his perfect standards and would suffer as a consequence.

That begs the question why do it.

My contention in that he did not create the universe .

There is no grand designer in the sense of an all powerful interacting supreme being.

Edited by Universal Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I agree with everything you have said. I guess there is logical thought to get from Point A to Point B...but is it really logical to think standing under a tree in a violent thunderstorm is the correct thing to do? Logic has to be more than getting from Point A to Point B.

But the vein of thought I am talking about is in the realm of God, Creation, etc. Now, you may say it is quite logical ...given the lack of knowledge for ancient men...to think a volcano is the voice of the Almighty...or that Thunder is the voice of God...I however, do not view that as logic. Within the construct of that view of logic, a person suffering from schizophrenia would be 'logically' going from Point A to Point B by following the instructions on how to fly off the cliff, given to him by his imaginary friend.

No those ancient men were quite rational and sane not schizophrenic. A well brain /mind can think rationally even though it has limited data.

An unwell mind is not capable of interpreting or processing any data rationally. Men know what happens when you jump off a cliff, because we all grow up with gravity even if we do not know what it is But when you do not know that microbes or bacteria even exist, for example, you will speak of ill humours or bad air, or even invisible spirits and demons. (actually not a bad explanation except that the real demons have no intellect or self awareness, they are just bacteria.)

You can learn a lot from observation, so that some ancient surgeons (roman, greek and chinese among others) knew enough to wash their hands before operating, yet in nineteenth century Europe, doctors were still going straight from autopsies to deliver babies, with bloody hands unwashed, causing horrendous infant and maternal mortality rates, because they did not observe or understand what was happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Yes, I have considered that God is the creator of the universe; I don't know who has not and I've seen absolutely no one here say, including atheists, that is not a possibility. But I don't think you've been arguing about possibilities, I thought you had been arguing about what the most likely possibility is; if you haven't then we've been talking past each other. You say in your post:

I don't know what 'Boreh Haolam" is, especially if it is not a god, and I can't find a definition of what that specifically means with a quick search, so it's tough to know to what extent I disagree with you. I'll try to explain my disagreement again just using 'God' instead. Fine, let's say that the universe required something to create it; I don't necessarily agree, the universe could have always existed in some form or another eternally, but let's set that aside, the universe needs a creator. God is a possible contender for being this creator. So are many, many other things that I've listed multiple times: gods plural, aliens, gremlins, a natural law of some sort operating outside our universe. So no, God is not 'the most likely answer because I have provided nothing stating how the universe could have caused itself to exist', the 'because' in that statement is not valid. The only two options are not 'God created the universe' and 'the universe caused itself to exist'; the two options at this level are "the universe was created by something' and 'the universe caused itself to exist' (again, we're excluding the third option, 'the universe has always existed in some form'). When you say God or Boreh Haolam likely created the universe, that is only talking about that first question, of who the creator is. Now I've already seen that we don't use the words the same way so I may be misreading you, but when you say the words 'most likely answer' I interpret that to mean that of all these possibilities, God has the highest probability of being the correct answer, it is the favored and best explanation. If you don't mean that and are truly just arguing that God is a possibility, of course he is, he's just no better of an explanation than anything else we can imagine, and I'll just give you a heads-up that many people are not going to interpret 'most likely' as just meaning, 'just a possibility'.

Sorry if my expression "Boreh haolam" startled you. It came out as a second nature. That's what we use in Hebrew for the Creator of the universe. Boreh=Creator and haolam=the universe. I am truly glad we have come into the common agreement that the Primal Cause is a possibility. To me personally, of course, it is more than a possibility at least by default, considering that some of the scientists are not sure if even a beginning happened for the universe which would be a contradiction not only to the majority acceptance of the BB as a beginning for the universe but also to Logic that since the universe is composed of matter and matter has been proved as a fact of everyday life that it has a beginning and an end, the Primal Cause becomes obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

I have no such burden on my shoulders. Energy is not a 'byproduct' of matter...Matter is a by-product of Energy...Matter changes...Energy doesn't. Go get a physics book or something...geez.

I think you are the one in need of a Physics book. You have just mentioned a double reason why energy is a byproduct not only of matter but also of change. But let us do this? Instead of arguing without any end in view, why don't you start by giving me examples for your denial. Show me how matter can come out of energy and I'll repeat to you a few examples I have already given of matter causing energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

You're seeing the Universe as single. I am seeing the Universe as one of many in a multi-verse, giving birth as life gives birth. No outside magician, just an entity of many other entities doing what nature does over deep time. You say the Universe can't come from nowhere, but that leaves us with the conundrum where did God come from? Your "logic" falls kind of short IMO, but then I had a class in logic.

No, it does not. You might be confusing the concept of multi-verse with the expansion of the universe. There is no logical approach at all to multiple universes concomitantly in existence, only in the philosophical mind of Thomas Mann as the universe of any man in particular. Science has cleared that up with the expansion of the universe.

God cannot be referred to as of coming from somewhere or nowhere. God operates from outside the universe. Hence Einstein's words that God is continuously involved with the expansion of the universe in his work of Creation. (From his book "Out of My Later Years")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

natural evil is a term used in theodicy to talk about those natural events that cause harm, not just to humans but every other sentient being.

Cancer has little to do with "wrong" choices of lifestyle. Cancer is a direct by-product of evolution. God could have created the world and everything in it in six days, but chose to use hundreds of millions of years of unnecessary pain, suffering and death.

To deny natural evil puts you in the minority of theologians. Most assent to it but explain it away with arguments for the greater good, whatever that might be. Others argue for nomic regularity, a fancy way of saying "that's just the way it is", in effect, denying God's omnipotence.

All these and other justifications are woefully inadequate. So it remains "a mystery", the final argument, which of course is no answer at all.

Supposedly, you must consider the eating up of a zebra by a hungry lion a natural evil? That's the same when living beings including man are found in places when a natural event happens and we have to deal with casualties. Interesting that when there is no casualties of any sort we never call the event a natural evil. Evil is when a man actively and willingly causes pain to another.

Cancer is not a product of evolution but of mutation as a result of exposition or contact with harmful elements. The things responsible for evolution are mutations and the natural need to adapt to new environments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

No those ancient men were quite rational and sane not schizophrenic. A well brain /mind can think rationally even though it has limited data.

An unwell mind is not capable of interpreting or processing any data rationally. Men know what happens when you jump off a cliff, because we all grow up with gravity even if we do not know what it is But when you do not know that microbes or bacteria even exist, for example, you will speak of ill humours or bad air, or even invisible spirits and demons. (actually not a bad explanation except that the real demons have no intellect or self awareness, they are just bacteria.)

You can learn a lot from observation, so that some ancient surgeons (roman, greek and chinese among others) knew enough to wash their hands before operating, yet in nineteenth century Europe, doctors were still going straight from autopsies to deliver babies, with bloody hands unwashed, causing horrendous infant and maternal mortality rates, because they did not observe or understand what was happening.

Why do we have such a high mortality rate? ...asked the European doctor to his colleague...Hell if I know, said the colleague as he scratched his butt before surgery. Wasn't it logical thought that led them to discover the reason?

Okay, I am not going to argue this point to death because I think I have logically concluded the problem here. The problem is that I, not speaking for anyone else, but, I am interested only in the Truth of matters. Voodoo, religion, belief systems of all varieties leave me still wondering what is the truth? I use logic to discover the truth. It is my desire for truth that is confusing the issue here. Better said, I am confusing the reasons for logical thought, because of my desire for truth.

I also recall times when I myself have logically concluded a thing to be Point B, when in fact it was actually near opposite of Point B and mostly, yes, the reasons were lack of knowledge on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

My thoughts: Qauntum fluxuation is the primal cause.

Ben you claim logic yet are commiting a informal fallacy: Agrument from ignorance. This rule states: assuming that a claim is true because it has not been proven false or cannot be proven false.

Also:

Argument from silence This rule States: where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

And a couple more, You also break the most simple rule: Consistency.

You cannot stop logical thinking at the outside of the universe. Your answer cannot start from Logic and end in an illogical response and call the conclusion logic, or correct.

But hey, im only studying, logic, havent passed yet! :)

As I can see, you need to brush up on Logic a little harder if you are serious about passing the exam.

If a thing cannot be proved false, logically it is true.

I have showed the existence of the logical evidence that if the universe is composed of matter and since matter cannot cause itself to exist, something that has preceded matter must have cause it to exist.

I can indeed think of "outside the universe" because something from outside the universe must have caused the universe to exist. The watch-maker has to be outside the watch to cause it to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

And who created Satan? And was omniscient and knew beforehand that Satan would rebel?

Man created Satan which according to Judaism it is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. Therefore it does not exist but as an evil emanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

There are two thought schools that view the god's creation.

School #1 Says that god created the universe and left it to its own course without ever penetrating to what is happening now.

School #1 Says god created everything and still goes on as an active part in all the creation, penetrating and going on with its creation as it chooses.

it all depends on your personal point of view to decide which one is true. none can be proved or understood scientifically.

The second school is more akin to my position. The Primal Cause gave origin to the universe and keeps on it through the expansion of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

If you beleive that God is omipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then it has to follow that God actually knew before he created the universe how thing would turn out .

He knew man would fall down in sin and that mankind as a whole would not be able to live up to his perfect standards and would suffer as a consequence.

That begs the question why do it.

My contention in that he did not create the universe .

There is no grand designer in the sense of an all powerful interacting supreme being.

The Primal Cause knows everything about the universe and how every thing would turn out and will. So what? We don't. If had created us robots yes, We would not have to know any thing but He created us with free will to use it to grow in knowledge even of the thing that only God still knows. Those who use their free will to sin, it changes nothing about being God Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient.

If God did not create the universe, who did it, you? I hope you at least know that the universe could not have created itself. It is only obvious that something that preceded it created it.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

As I can see, you need to brush up on Logic a little harder if you are serious about passing the exam.

If a thing cannot be proved false, logically it is true.

"Unicorns exist" cannot be proven false, thus 'logically' unicorns exist. But yes, please continue to point out how others need to brush up on Logic...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.