Why can't God just kill Satan

[billeau2]

Not sure about that, too.

i have seen people put good and misery comes back to them.

i have seen corrupted and drug dealing persons and mostly good has come their way.

It does seem that way at times. Then I ask myself how happy a bad person can be.

[Anthony342]

He can, but then he'll just end up back in hell.

[billeau2]

Red - That's is found in all religious communities.

Blue - what were you taught?

Yes it is. Which is why it is imo a "setup" to ask anyone that would agree to celibacy for example, to mentor others who are married or example. There might even be an inadvertant choosing of sexual deviants. Most normal individuals would not agree to celebacy.

Louise taught me that when you are joyful and kind the food is better. When a kitchen is tense, people are angry it affects the whole process of sharing and preparing food. When I went in to the monastery I had learned how to be a cook in a French and Philipino restaurant. I was very fortunate because the people that taught me were great people. My first teacher (also named Louise but a male lol) was a chef and tolerated my 13 year old shenanigans. He taught me how to prep, line cook, wok cooking, etc.

Then I learned from two French chefs, one was a lady Christine and other was this giant Black Guy Michael. They both were incredible teachers and taught me how to laugh in the kitchen, and work hard. I also learned enough French info so I could learn how to cook Creole/Cajun when I met my wife.

Louise organized the monastery kitchen and like my mentors, she could get people to want to do a great job with her attitude. Later when I worked in restaurants and was a head chef on my own, I used that same approach. Never yelled at people in the kitchen, would encourage them, make them feel invested in doing the best they could, supported.

So she taught me how to lead by example an reinforced what I had already learned. She also used to teach about (this was years ago!!) fresh food, seasonal foods, growing things organickly in the monastery gardens, and how to compost! Again this was years before people were doing this like they do now.

[siablo14]

Yes it is. Which is why it is imo a "setup" to ask anyone that would agree to celibacy for example, to mentor others who are married or example. There might even be an inadvertant choosing of sexual deviants. Most normal individuals would not agree to celebacy.

Louise taught me that when you are joyful and kind the food is better. When a kitchen is tense, people are angry it affects the whole process of sharing and preparing food. When I went in to the monastery I had learned how to be a cook in a French and Philipino restaurant. I was very fortunate because the people that taught me were great people. My first teacher (also named Louise but a male lol) was a chef and tolerated my 13 year old shenanigans. He taught me how to prep, line cook, wok cooking, etc.

Then I learned from two French chefs, one was a lady Christine and other was this giant Black Guy Michael. They both were incredible teachers and taught me how to laugh in the kitchen, and work hard. I also learned enough French info so I could learn how to cook Creole/Cajun when I met my wife.

Louise organized the monastery kitchen and like my mentors, she could get people to want to do a great job with her attitude. Later when I worked in restaurants and was a head chef on my own, I used that same approach. Never yelled at people in the kitchen, would encourage them, make them feel invested in doing the best they could, supported.

So she taught me how to lead by example an reinforced what I had already learned. She also used to teach about (this was years ago!!) fresh food, seasonal foods, growing things organickly in the monastery gardens, and how to compost! Again this was years before people were doing this like they do now.

Red - well said.

So you know how to cook fried rice?

[siablo14]

It does seem that way at times. Then I ask myself how happy a bad person can be.

Don't know but outwardly they seem happy.

[GGG Gloveking]

If scientists discovered what was beyond our universe, then you wouldnt call it God?

Thats obviously why 'god of the gaps' arguments arent very good. Because they are repeatedly exposed.

To me its like hijacking science.
Science discovers something which leads to unanswered questions.
Then it seems some people (believers) leapfrog the questions, and place god in the gap
.
Then god gets replaced by scientific evidence.

Its always kinda predictable.

I dont understand why people would still admit to using the god of the gaps. Even with the first cause argument.
Its still "no one knows = god did it".

My first post in this thread was about how people shouldnt use their limited understanding of extremely complex science to justify their beliefs.
Its just a very unstable foundation to place such a personal belief on top of.

And you have repeatedly used science to justify your belief, but, id say, you misunderstand how entropy works.
Im no expert, but the basics of entropy means this statement you made...
"Rather than becoming a more advanced civilization, we should he getting closer to particles of dust and unusable heat."
...is very wrong.
Because simply, we get energy from the sun.
The sun does not get energy from anywhere, so it will die.
The big bang was a release of energy and that energy was converted into stars, galaxies, etc.
But because the universe is a closed system, it will slowly die.
Energy is still being converted because of the laws of physics. We still get energy from the sun until it dies.

So the order in the universe is the result of energy released at the big bang, not more energy being added from outside the universe.

You said...
"These scientific laws state that everything will tend toward randomness if left undisturbed. The cosmos has not tended toward randomness. Who or what is applying the necessary energy to cause this?"

So you misunderstand entropy when applied to the universe. And therefore its not a good argument for a belief in god.

Also, the rotation of the Earth and Moon and our water cycle and reproduction...you apparently see some miraculous component in these things. But im not sure what.

Planets, stars, moons, galaxies etc all rotate.
Moons orbit planets.

But its all physics.

The same physics which causes mass extinctions.
I only mention this because you said you see intelligence in the rotation of Earth.
If you meant it all seems to be designed so that life can exist on our planet there is obviously a flip side to that.
Death and destruction.

Even our reproductive system. I dont see miracles.
More embryos die than there are babies born.
So many women still die giving birth.
I dont see an intelligent design.

If we discovered what is beyond the universe, and whatever it is created the universe, designed the universe, and provides the energy required to maintain order and keep us from entropic chaos, then that, by definition, would be God. If it is beyond nature (the universe), and not bound by the laws of physics, then the term is supernatural, which God is.

You keep using the phrase "God of the gaps". That is only a small part of my argument for the existence of God. Most of my argument is teleological, dealing with the order and design of the universe. I know you say you don't see intelligence or design in the universe, and I'll address that. "No one knows=God did it". Not exactly, it's more like, "Defies known laws of physics=God did it". And you know, I don't mean no harm, but how can you sit there and talk down to me for using a "God of the gaps" argument, when you use a shrug at the gaps argument? Saying, "I don't know, but you're wrong" just doesn't sit well with me.

You say I'm misunderstanding entropy, but not bothering to say how I'm wrong. In fact, you agree with me when you say, "But because the universe is a closed system, it will slowly die".

You said, "So the order in the universe is the result of energy released at the big bang, not more energy being added from outside the universe", however...

the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all closed systems tend to maximize entropy. Reversing this ever increasing tendency toward disorder requires the input of energy.

https://www.realclearscience.com/lis..._disorder.html

Input and release are not the same thing. And think of it this way, if your statement was true, the 2nd law wouldn't need to exist as the closed system could maintain it's order through it's own energy release. But it doesn't work that way.

You say you don't see any intelligent design, and I can't force you to see anything, but I'll reiterate what I see that I believe it intelligent, not necessarily "miraculous" like you try to say.

I see intelligence in our Earth's rotation. I certainly don't think we'd be able to survive with synchronous rotation, like the moon or Venus. I see day and night as being by design, rather than just "we got lucky"

I see intelligence in the water cycle. I think it's pretty smart that the same water will rain on my town, evaporate, form a cloud, fly over to your town, and rain on you. We probably would have ran out of water a long time ago otherwise. I guess we got pretty lucky there. I see lots of intelligence in water. Ever study hydrogen bonding? Adhesion, cohesion, polarity, viscosity...all from a little molecule. I see that being by design rather than just "we got lucky".

I see intelligence in sexual reproduction. How the sperm and egg have half the number of chromosome is smart. And the more complex the animal is being reproduced, the more intelligence I see. How the information required to transform the baby from a monocellular organism to a complex animal, with specialized organs, cells, and everything is stored in those reproduction cells is pretty smart in my eyes. The same people that tell me it takes millions of years and sheit to turn a monkey into a person, seem to so easily dismiss the transformation of what more resembles an amoeba into a mammal in a matter of months.

I see intelligence in nature. In school, I was taught that a circle (wheel), was intelligent design. I was taught that a stick and a rock (lever) was intelligent design. A was taught a pointy piece of wood (wedge) was intelligent design. I was taught that these were called "machines". Yet now I have to argue that something more complex than the most intricate combustion engine, is by design.

Ever read an anatomy book? Or better yet, take a bunch of med school post graduate books, like cardiology, orthopedics, neuromuscular, brain surgery, gastrology, orthodontics, etc etc, and stack them on top of each other. Then pull out the Haynes manual for you car, and ponder the difference in size. Take a picture of the two, and tell me "we got lucky"

[GGG Gloveking]

Red - We don't know if our universe is the only one. Use the proper term isolated systems. Entropy argument is referring to an isolated( neither energy or matter can enter or leave) versus a closed systems(matter can't leave or enter but energy can). Use the proper chemistry definition to avoid confusing because laymen are using closed(wrongly) in place of isolated and that has led to some confusion.

Blue - There you go. Good you admit because at this moment no one is sure what took place there. So we all don't know.

The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nor-destroyed/

[The Noose]

If we discovered what is beyond the universe, and whatever it is created the universe, designed the universe, and provides the energy required to maintain order and keep us from entropic chaos, then that, by definition, would be God. If it is beyond nature (the universe), and not bound by the laws of physics, then the term is supernatural, which God is.

You keep using the phrase "God of the gaps". That is only a small part of my argument for the existence of God. Most of my argument is teleological, dealing with the order and design of the universe. I know you say you don't see intelligence or design in the universe, and I'll address that. "No one knows=God did it". Not exactly, it's more like, "Defies known laws of physics=God did it". And you know, I don't mean no harm, but how can you sit there and talk down to me for using a "God of the gaps" argument, when you use a shrug at the gaps argument? Saying, "I don't know, but you're wrong" just doesn't sit well with me.

You say I'm misunderstanding entropy, but not bothering to say how I'm wrong. In fact, you agree with me when you say, "But because the universe is a closed system, it will slowly die".

You said, "So the order in the universe is the result of energy released at the big bang, not more energy being added from outside the universe", however...

the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all closed systems tend to maximize entropy. Reversing this ever increasing tendency toward disorder requires the input of energy.

https://www.realclearscience.com/lis..._disorder.html

Input and release are not the same thing. And think of it this way, if your statement was true, the 2nd law wouldn't need to exist as the closed system could maintain it's order through it's own energy release. But it doesn't work that way.

You say you don't see any intelligent design, and I can't force you to see anything, but I'll reiterate what I see that I believe it intelligent, not necessarily "miraculous" like you try to say.

I see intelligence in our Earth's rotation. I certainly don't think we'd be able to survive with synchronous rotation, like the moon or Venus. I see day and night as being by design, rather than just "we got lucky"

I see intelligence in the water cycle. I think it's pretty smart that the same water will rain on my town, evaporate, form a cloud, fly over to your town, and rain on you. We probably would have ran out of water a long time ago otherwise. I guess we got pretty lucky there. I see lots of intelligence in water. Ever study hydrogen bonding? Adhesion, cohesion, polarity, viscosity...all from a little molecule. I see that being by design rather than just "we got lucky".

I see intelligence in sexual reproduction. How the sperm and egg have half the number of chromosome is smart. And the more complex the animal is being reproduced, the more intelligence I see. How the information required to transform the baby from a monocellular organism to a complex animal, with specialized organs, cells, and everything is stored in those reproduction cells is pretty smart in my eyes. The same people that tell me it takes millions of years and sheit to turn a monkey into a person, seem to so easily dismiss the transformation of what more resembles an amoeba into a mammal in a matter of months.

I see intelligence in nature. In school, I was taught that a circle (wheel), was intelligent design. I was taught that a stick and a rock (lever) was intelligent design. A was taught a pointy piece of wood (wedge) was intelligent design. I was taught that these were called "machines". Yet now I have to argue that something more complex than the most intricate combustion engine, is by design.

Ever read an anatomy book? Or better yet, take a bunch of med school post graduate books, like cardiology, orthopedics, neuromuscular, brain surgery, gastrology, orthodontics, etc etc, and stack them on top of each other. Then pull out the Haynes manual for you car, and ponder the difference in size. Take a picture of the two, and tell me "we got lucky"

Firstly, i wasnt talking down to you.
Its difficult to not come across as a ahole on the internet when discussing this stuff. But im so done with beefing with people.
Im just chatting. Addressing your points.

My argument isnt just "i dont know". Like i said before about faith. When all is said and done, i dont have the faith to believe there is a God behind everything.

And when it comes to using science to justify a belief in God, its problematic. Obviously because no scientific theory states there is any intelligence behind the apparent design in nature.

Plus i still think you misunderstand entropy....

If we discovered what is beyond the universe, and whatever it is... provides the energy required to maintain order and keep us from entropic chaos,

I dont understand why you think our universe receives extra energy to stop entropy.
My take is, like i said, all energy was released at the big bang. This energy caused stars to form. Stars are all just burning up their energy over billions of years. Our planet receives the suns energy. We receive the suns energy. So our planet is not a closed system. But the universe is.

The link you posted gave the example of a house not being cleaned. It says how spiders will move in. Cob webs will form etc.
So like the universe, no more energy is being put in. But the energy is being transformed into the creation of stars and planets. But this will all eventually fall apart. Like the unclean house.
Maybe a decaying chicken is another example. As its entropy increases bacteria will start thrive for a time.

It seems what you are saying is that the universe contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Correct me if im wrong.
If you are saying that could you give a specific example of how.
I mean, you said we should be turning to dust but i dont see why.

"No one knows=God did it". Not exactly, it's more like, "Defies known laws of physics=God did it". And you know, I don't mean no harm, but how can you sit there and talk down to me for using a "God of the gaps" argument, when you use a shrug at the gaps argument? Saying, "I don't know, but you're wrong" just doesn't sit well with me.

Well, if something defies the laws of physics, then surely its only logical to conclude that we dont know.
Physicists say they dont know. Obviously i dont know more then they do. Therefore admitting we dont know is quite reasonable.
Nothing wrong with saying you believe God did it. But thats faith, not science.


The rest of what you say...with the "we got lucky" stuff.
I think we evolved and adapted to the planet.
Not that the planet was designed for us.
Thats just doesnt make sense to me.
Over billions of years life adapted to the Earths conditions. During which time 99% of all species went extinct. If it wasnt for the dinosaurs being wiped out we wouldnt exist.
We are only able to survive in specific conditions on thin layer of our tiny planets crust. And we have only been around for 200,000 years.

The way you see the water cycle reminds me of what someone else said. That if we were tiny organisms in a puddle on the ground, we would argue that our watery home must of been designed just for us.

With the reproductive system...do you think it could of been designed better? Obviously it could. So that child birth didnt result so often in the death of the baby or mother.
If a car manufacturer made cars that blew up half the time, the design would be massively flawed.

I see what you say about complexity. Its mind boggling. But its been shown that simple processes over long periods of time can result in complex systems.

If there is vast complexity in the molecules that make up a fly, which lays its eggs in the open would of a dying animal...i dont see the work of a God.
I see a natural process.


You got some stamina to still be sparring with people in this thread.
Green k.

[siablo14]

The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nor-destroyed/

No one has ever been to the boundary to be sure about that.

[billeau2]

Red - well said.

So you know how to cook fried rice?

Of course, several types.