Thread 17891542

If every star is a sun, and every sun has planets with life on them, that would imply the universe has an organizing force.

So why is it this organizing force designed a world where creatures have to devour each other to survive?

>>17891542 (OP)
Sin introduced death into creation. God preordained that one day (after the flood specifically) we would eat animals for sustenance for a reminder and humility.

Organization doesn't imply an external or intentional force, ie. god.
Or then God evidently doesn't consider killing an undesirable thing. We must have misunderstood his/her instructions at some point.

>>17891542 (OP)
He didn't, like >>17891551 said, death and decay are only here because evil is. You can't have immortality and permanence in a world with evil, otherwise evil will just grow until there's no more good.

As for the implied question about why He doesn't just directly improve it and solve these problems manually, it's because of a potential paradox between omnipotence and attempting to maximize a value that has no maximum. Check out https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YKUhD7--LKw

>>17891586
>why He doesn't just directly improve it and solve these problems manually, it's because of a potential paradox between omnipotence and attempting to maximize a value that has no maximum.
Even if you take for granted a way of modeling things where 1.There is no maximum good, and 2. Evil can't be totally eliminated because it will always be present in the absence of maximum good, it doesn't seem to be explained why he can't just rapidly perpetually improve things through time, so that although no maximum good is attained, at the very least things never reverse and get worse.

>>17891632
In other words, best possible being shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good, so that when confronted with the inability to make perfection he just shits out whatever and calls it a day.

>>17891632
Did you check out the video? It's quick and answers that really well. "why he can't just rapidly perpetually improve things through time, so that although no maximum good is attained, at the very least things never reverse and get worse." is EXACTLY its conclusion!!!

>>17891645
Ah, it glitched and I just saw one frame when I first followed the link, and although it seemed odd, after being unable to get more out of it I figured that was the whole argument. But now I tried it again and the whole thing did load.

But I think the conclusion is obviously wrong given that life does and has observably gotten worse in ways that could be prevented with intervention. I guess you could argue that maybe if you look at it globally, on average there is consistent improvement, even if there are local reversals. But I don't see why God would be prevented from causing consistent local improvement as well.

Sin is a part of life, man.

"From all your sins before God you shall be cleansed" (Third Book of Moses, 16:30)

>>17891542 (OP)
Every man is a Star

>>17892480
Every nigga is a star
Every nigga is a star
Every nigga is a star
Every nigga is a star
Every nigga is a star
Who will deny
That you and I and
Every nigga is a staaaaaar
HIT ME

>>17891670
> I think the conclusion is obviously wrong given that life does and has observably gotten worse
There's one more piece to it that addresses exactly this! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5kAte0NX8Nc

Resurrection is the answer to this. All good that exists or has ever existed is, effectively, permanent, since it will all be resurrected and added to the world again. Make a person and that person will be resurrected, adding permanently to reality's total population. Make a painting and that painting will be resurrected, permanently adding to the total amount of beauty that exists. Even have a good day and that day will be resurrected.

So no good ever goes away, it just goes into storage. But like a person depositing money in the bank doesn't get poorer, the amount of good never goes down. It's just a question of how much is being produced: there's less good being made in a war-torn or plague-ravaged area than a prosperous one.

>>17891586
>Christians in charge of telling us how weak God is and how wouldn't be able to stuff cuz it's too hard

>>17893618
It's not a matter of difficulty. It's as if I gave you the following math problem:

X + 4 = Y. Solve for Y with a natural number.

You cannot solve this. Is it because it's too difficult? No, it's because the problem, as stated, has no solution by definition. An omniscient being wouldn't know the solution - not because it can't figure it out, but because there is no solution to know.

"God should make the world as good as He can" winds up being similar. He can't do this not because it's too hard, but because there is no "as good as He can": no matter how much good an omnipotent being makes, it can always make more.

Instead He resolved this issue by creating time and change, allowing for the world to be potentially infinitely good by virtue of good always increasing. He directly acts when and only when His direct action is necessary for good to continue increasing in the world, thus avoiding any paradoxes.

>>17893831
>Blao blao god good but somehow he cant fix shit by making everything Spirit instead of matter
Lmao

>>17891542 (OP)
not in India

>If every star is a sun, and every sun has planets with life on them
This is not the case
>that would imply the universe has an organizing force.
No it would not

>>17891586
???
why would god create digestive systems then? lol

>>17893924
Nothing can be a perpetual motion machine since perpetual motion ultimately requires creating energy from nothing, something only an omnipotent being can do. So no matter what state the world is in, anything will need energy-processing systems of some sort

>>17893845
And what specifically would make such a world better than our's? Satan and demons are spirits so clearly that doesn't prevent evil

>>17894245
At least you would see the trouble ahead...
Case in point, an old fan favourite, the vampire. You would see the vampire, as it's of physical substance, but a demon?
I'm sure you get me.

>>17891542 (OP)

They are appreciating flora, not fauna. Different velocity. Serene.

>>17894295
>I'm sure you get me.
Unfortunately this notion is mistaken since I don't really get what you're trying to say. The best I can figure is you're saying spirits can see the future, but unless you buy superstitions with mediums and crystal balls there's no basis for that

>>17894239
so the laws of the universe are above god? lel

That's not even the worst part. We then pass the most God awful substance out of our arse holes after we digest the animal we devoured. And this disgusting substance is then used to grow food for us to devour and shit out all over again. Not only that, our shit makes for excellent explosives! God is a mad scientist.

>>17894336
This isn't a physical law, it winds up being a logical one. To accomplish a task, you either use something else, or you don't. If you don't, then you're making something from nothing, which requires omnipotence. If you do, then what you're using is going to behave like energy.

I've never seen a description of a perpetual motion machine under any hypothetical physics that was both:
A) capable of doing useful work, and
B) not ultimately creating its energy equivalent ex nihilio

Now at the beginning, God did have something that appears to have been a true perpetual motion machine in practice, which was capable of doing useful work forever and making other things able to do the same: the Tree of Life. Humans could eat and digest its fruit.

So he's certainly not bound by those laws and we know of at least one thing he made that, by all appearances, also wasn't. But our digestive systems were the interface between ourselves and that perpetual motion machine.

So it's like looking at a system powered by a perpetual motion machine that makes electricity, and objecting "why do things have plugs?". That's how they interface with it.

>>17894352
tl;dr

my point was that there's no point in designing animals with a digestive system if they had no need to consume in their original design, unless you mean animals ate each other in eden but they grew their flesh back or some other nonsensical jewish magic you can come up with, which ironically would go against this law of perpetual motion of yours

there's even less logic when you consider that god is all-knowing, if he anticipated it and designed it accordingly, then why create a world with death, etc. etc.

you've heard this argument possibly countless times

it points to things being more inline with how evolution works rather than creationism

>>17894363
>if they had no need to consume in their original design
They did, as said nothing can be a perpetual motion machine without the direct intervention of an omnipotent being. They got the energy to take actions from food in Eden, probably especially from the Tree of Life.

>then why create a world with death
He didn't, death is a countermeasure triggered by the presence of evil. If you don't have death or destruction but do have evil, then eventually evil will just choke out all good. So once it comes, the protection mechanism is triggered and we get evil. Once evil has died out, the resurrection will take place and we'll return to a world without death or destruction.

>>17891542 (OP)
>every sun has planets with life on them
Not true. No tiny little germs don't count as a full on mammal

As above so below

Everything in creation consumes something for survival

Why would this be different in the higher dimensions?

What do they eat? Ask yourself what is this reality so conducive in creating? Suffering from living beings. This place is a loosh farm.