Why God Allows People to Sin

[Chrawnus]

This is starting to remind me of a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"[The history of the universe] is terribly long and awfully difficult to understand, even in its simpler moments which are, roughly speaking, the beginning and the end. The wave harmonic theory of historical perception, in its simplest form, states that history is an illusion caused by the passage of time, and that time is an illusion caused by the passage of history."

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Ask Mr Religion]

"allow" as the word is used today is too passive when it comes to the sovereignty of God.

God has a morally sufficient purpose for evil. Trying to fully grasp the "why" of it is a fool's errand. Deut. 29:29.

AMR

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

[JimL]

You are getting steadily more incoherent and this thread progresses. Presentism is a part of the A-Theory, whereas Einstein held to a realist interpretation of 4D spacetime, which is a part of the B-Theory. They are two completely separate ideas. And no, past refers to events that no longer exist, and future refers to events that have yet to exist. The claim that temporal becoming is mind-dependant is incoherent, since in order for their to be an illusion of temporal becoming... there needs to be temporal becoming.

Judge not lest ye be judged my friend. I'm not taking into consideration what other peoples theory's of time are since nobody knows for sure how to define time. My thought is that if it is true that all of what we call time exists, if all events in time are on an equal footing, if all of the physical world, past, present and future is out there, then what we experience as time is not an attribute of the physical world, but rather it is an attribute of a non physical consciousness itself. Its not that i'm suggesting time itself is an illusion, what i'm suggesting is that change or time in the physical world may be an illusion, the real change, or real time, or as you put it, the real temporal becoming, takes place not in the physical world, but in our consciousness as it sweeps through that world. I'm not saying either that I necessarily agree with this view, it is just a thought that came over me when considering the assertion of some that all of time, like all of space exists, but I would think that you religious types would embrace rather than criticize since you believe yourselves to be spirits or consciouness's that are distinct from the physical world.

[JimL]

"allow" as the word is used today is too passive when it comes to the sovereignty of God.

God has a morally sufficient purpose for evil. Trying to fully grasp the "why" of it is a fool's errand. Deut. 29:29.

If morality entails that the ends justifies the means, then man too could say the same.

[Rational Gaze]

Its not that i'm suggesting time itself is an illusion, what i'm suggesting is that change or time in the physical world may be an illusion, the real change, or real time, or as you put it, the real temporal becoming, takes place not in the physical world, but in our consciousness as it sweeps through that world.

That's the same thing. You are arguing that temporal becoming is mind-dependant.

[JimL]

That's the same thing. You are arguing that temporal becoming is mind-dependant.

There is no accounting in physics for a time that flows, modern physics as far as I can tell, says that all of time is out there, that all events in the past and in the future are just as real as events in the now, in the present, that the physical universe itself doesn't experience change. Whether any of this is true or not I don't know, but if it is, then where else can the attribute of time exist but in the non-physical, a non-physical consciousness, or mind?

[Chrawnus]

There is no accounting in physics for a time that flows, modern physics as far as I can tell, says that all of time is out there, that all events in the past and in the future are just as real as events in the now, in the present, that the physical universe itself doesn't experience change. Whether any of this is true or not I don't know, but if it is, then where else can the attribute of time exist but in the non-physical, a non-physical consciousness, or mind?

Actually, physics itself says nothing of the sort. The reason people think that "all of time is out there" is that they think the space-time interpretation (i.e a Minkowskian interpretation) is the correct interpretation of SR. But the Lorentzian interpretation is a just as viable and equally plausible interpretation of SR as the Minkowskian interpretation. And a dynamic theory of time (such as presentism) is compatible with the Lorentzian interpretation.

So when you're choosing between the Minkowskian, or Lorentzian interpretation you're not doing physics, you're doing metaphysics.

[Rational Gaze]

There is no accounting in physics for a time that flows, modern physics as far as I can tell, says that all of time is out there, that all events in the past and in the future are just as real as events in the now, in the present, that the physical universe itself doesn't experience change.

No, it doesn't. As Chrawnus said, only the Minkowskian interpretation stipulates a 4-dimensional space-time block where all times are equally existent. The original Einsteinian interpretation did not have this feature, which is probably why Einstein adopted the Minkowskian interpretation, as it preserved relations of absolute simultaneity. However, completely overlooked, is the Lorentzian interpretation, which is mathematically identical to the Einsteinian and Minkowskian interpretations, preserves relations of absolute simultaneity, but instead of supposing a 4-dimensional space-time block, stipulates a privileged reference frame, and there is at least some evidence that potentially points to a Lorentzian interpretation rather than a Minkowskian interpretation. However, the main reason for rejecting the Minkowskian interpretation is due to the fact that the static conception of time is incompatible with certain features of the observable universe. Also, as Chrawnus mentioned, this is not a scientific issue, it is a metaphysical one.

[Kane]

"allow" as the word is used today is too passive when it comes to the sovereignty of God.

God has a morally sufficient purpose for evil. Trying to fully grasp the "why" of it is a fool's errand. Deut. 29:29.

AMR

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

Right: First, initiate a creation that I will assert myself onto no matter what the special interests of the creatures you've created. For example, survival without suffering. Forget that nonsense! How will they ever see that I'm so much bigger than they are, so much more the tough-guy.

Second, inject into their feeble graspings after my nature a delete mode for "allowance." All talk of "allowance" is ipso facto wrong because it's not bad-ass enough; doesn't make me look like the universal heavy. And we can't have misperceptions about how scrappy I really am. Allowance? Hah! I'll just hurl disease like that soft-boiled deity, Zeus, hurled lightning bolts. That'll show 'em who's in charge. And if they still don't get it, I'll nail my son to a tree. That'll learn them.

Third, obfuscate the occasional books I write by filtering them through lesser mortals with localized biases, having them collected and bound together into a canon by a self-interested, self-elected, politically self-serving group known as Catholics. They'll claim they have no biases, that God actually did it, and I'll uphold their claims so long as they credit their own interests to me. That way we can look as if we're working together on this. Then there'll be a big hissy-fit between the East and the West, and an even bigger hissy-fit within the West by people who think they know what I'm on about better than everyone else ever did. That'll result in the next 500+ years of constant revisioning, and theological warring.

Fourth, just as people settle down a tad, more people will realise that the book I originally wrote doesn't really exist anymore, but that's okay because they have faith.

That should cut a clear path to understanding that I "have a morally sufficient purpose for evil." And if they still don't believe that, after how clear I've been, I'll just have Mr. Religion tell them. 'Cause all that philosophical prattle can be wiped aside with a deft Presbyterian assertion.

[Chrawnus]

Right: First, initiate a creation that I will assert myself onto no matter what the special interests of the creatures you've created. For example, survival without suffering. Forget that nonsense! How will they ever see that I'm so much bigger than they are, so much more the tough-guy.

Second, inject into their feeble graspings after my nature a delete mode for "allowance." All talk of "allowance" is ipso facto wrong because it's not bad-ass enough; doesn't make me look like the universal heavy. And we can't have misperceptions about how scrappy I really am. Allowance? Hah! I'll just hurl disease like that soft-boiled deity, Zeus, hurled lightning bolts. That'll show 'em who's in charge. And if they still don't get it, I'll nail my son to a tree. That'll learn them.

Third, obfuscate the occasional books I write by filtering them through lesser mortals with localized biases, having them collected and bound together into a canon by a self-interested, self-elected, politically self-serving group known as Catholics. They'll claim they have no biases, that God actually did it, and I'll uphold their claims so long as they credit their own interests to me. That way we can look as if we're working together on this. Then there'll be a big hissy-fit between the East and the West, and an even bigger hissy-fit within the West by people who think they know what I'm on about better than everyone else ever did. That'll result in the next 500+ years of constant revisioning, and theological warring.

Fourth, just as people settle down a tad, more people will realise that the book I originally wrote doesn't really exist anymore, but that's okay because they have faith.

That should cut a clear path to understanding that I "have a morally sufficient purpose for evil." And if they still don't believe that, after how clear I've been, I'll just have Mr. Religion tell them. 'Cause all that philosophical prattle can be wiped aside with a deft Presbyterian assertion.

UMAD.jpg

[Kane]

UMAD.jpg

Might be. Why do you ask?

[Chrawnus]

Might be. Why do you ask?

Well, no reason really. It's just that discussions tend to be kind of unfruitful when people are infuriated. I think it has something to do with the fact that their ability to reason and see things clearly become obfuscated.

[Pilgrim]

C.S. Lewis says it pretty well when he says, that "God let's us have what we want." The whole question is a little silly to me. Humanity cries for it's freedom non stop. Personal autonomy is pretty much seen as the most worthwhile pursuit in most cultures. And yet we cry when God let's us have it. Come on. You can't have it both ways.

[Kane]

Well, no reason really. It's just that discussions tend to be kind of unfruitful when people are infuriated. I think it has something to do with the fact that their ability to reason and see things clearly become obfuscated.

You've put a lot of projection into your response there, Crawnus. Consider my response to Mr. Religion a textual eye-rolling: not infuriated, just treating his comments with sarcasm.

Moreover, I consider the person who argues without any emotional investment to be insincere: they're blocking out part of what makes them human.

[Kane]

C.S. Lewis says it pretty well when he says, that "God let's us have what we want." The whole question is a little silly to me. Humanity cries for it's freedom non stop. Personal autonomy is pretty much seen as the most worthwhile pursuit in most cultures. And yet we cry when God let's us have it. Come on. You can't have it both ways.

What are you talking about?