Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[Dutch Uncle]

Reading comprehension problems?
I didn't say anything about Catholics. Not a word.
There are numerous Protestant ministers, vicars, and pastors who graduated college, obtained a rigorous divinity school education, and are intelligent rational people.

MAGAts don't read so good. Most seem a little cray-cray. Abbie Normal.

 

[IBDaMann]

Right, so the law of universal gravitation never existed before Newton wrote it down

Too funny. Into the Night is correct. The law of gravity did not exist until a human created it. If you weren't so scientifically illiterate, you'd understand the intrinsic difference between the force that we call gravity and the human-created theory of gravity.

Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist?

Way too funny. You are the one in error, and here you double down on it.

That's not what you wrote,

It is what he wrote. I'm reading it right now.

and now you're trying to backtrack and modify what you originally stated.

Nope. You are refusing to understand your own error.

You wrote in post 568 that the law of universal gravitation was a creation of humans

Which it is.

and the law of gravity didn't exist until Newton wrote an equation.

Correct. The force we call gravity existed, but the law didn't exist until Newton wrote it. What part is confusing you?

 

[Cypress]

Too funny. Into the Night is correct.

Right, so until Isaac Newton wrote an equation down, humans just did not have the slightest clue there was a predictable and lawful principle governing planetary motions - even if they didn't have modern terminology, theories, and mathematics to describe it.

 

[IBDaMann]

It's such an open-ended concept and since there is literally zero evidence for any of these, a plethora of versions of God spring up like weeds.

Your "zero evidence" assertion is false.

God is literally whatever the individual believer needs it to be and is thence constructed to be.

Better wording: God is whatever the believer believes God to be, and that belief is guided by the evidence that the believer accepts.

I guess the biggest question is: if there is a God whose only role is to be the creator who set up the laws and made sure math worked and the only reason to suspect he exists is because there are laws and math works, then what is the value in having that information?

You should ask a believer. I recommend asking gfm7175 or Into the Night, then you'll have the correct answer.

It provides nothing of any real value other than to be a place-holder.

You should ask a believer.

What's the point of coming up with an unprovable, unevidenced explanation for a mystery that may not even be a mystery?

You should ask a believer, then you'll have the correct answer.

since there is literally zero evidence for any of these,

False. Every believer has evidence. I recommend asking gfm7175 or Into the Night to share with you the evidence that they have each individually accepted.

 

[Margot]

Reading comprehension problems?
I didn't say anything about Catholics. Not a word.
There are numerous Protestant ministers, vicars, and pastors who graduated college, obtained a rigorous divinity school education, and are intelligent rational people.

That's absolutely true! I wanted to go that route,but was told there's no school to get a degree in Melchizedek.
It's an appointed office

 

[Margot]

What makes you think a spirit is beyond the laws of physics?

Because Spirit don't have properties of the physical universe

 

[Into the Night]

That's not what you wrote, and now you're trying to backtrack and modify what you originally stated.

You wrote in post 568 that the law of universal gravitation was a creation of humans and the law of gravity didn't exist until Newton wrote an equation.

I didn't write post 568, Sybil. YOU DID.

 

[Into the Night]

but the bible is. you missed the point.

why don't you just simmer down and stay off my jock without a point.

Science isn't the Bible either, NoName. You aren't making a point right now.

 

[Into the Night]

No, that idea is more than 100 years out of date.

Strictly speaking, gravity is the curvature of spacetime which determines how objects move in geodesic paths.

Nope. That's a different model. Gravity is a force. Planets don't have rocket engines pushing them.

That's what the theory of general relativity demonstrated way back in 1915.

A theory isn't a demonstration, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Right, so until Isaac Newton wrote an equation down, humans just did not have the slightest clue there was a predictable and lawful principle governing planetary motions - even if they didn't have modern terminology, theories, and mathematics to describe it.

That's right, Sybil. People did not have a way to explain planetary or star movement using gravity until Newton wrote that theory and law.

 

[Into the Night]

Because Spirit don't have properties of the physical universe

What makes you think a spirit is not part of the physical universe? There is, after all only one universe (by definition).

 

[IBDaMann]

Right, so until Isaac Newton wrote an equation down, humans just did not have the slightest clue there was a predictable and lawful principle governing planetary motions - even if they didn't have modern terminology, theories, and mathematics to describe it.

That was an excellent pivot. You are still mistaken.

Until Isaac Newton expressed his theory unambiguously, nobody knew what the correct theory was.

Yes, the force we call "gravity" existed prior to Isaac Newton creating the science. This is not what you were saying.
Yes, people understood how things could fall when dropped. This is not what you were saying.
No, nobody knew what the theory of gravity was until the theory of gravity was created. You were asserting the opposite.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, that idea is more than 100 years out of date.

Nope. Gravity is a force. If you weren't so scientifically illiterate, you'd know this.

As a courtesy, I will give you a piece of correct information. Let's see how quickly it takes you to reject it out of hand: Newton's model of gravity models gravity as a force within a single intertial frame of reference. Einstein's model of gravity embeds Newton's model, but assigns it nonlinear variability so that it applies in all frames.

Strictly speaking, gravity is the curvature of spacetime

Nope. That's one conceptualization. Strickly speaking, Relativity is the nonlinear relationships across frames.

which determines how objects move in geodesic paths.

Your problem is that you don't know enough to know when terms are misleading. Relativity provides nonlinear relationships. Spacetime is not described as a physical thing that is somehow curved.

That's what the theory of general relativity demonstrated way back in 1915.

What was demonstrated is that photons have mass and are thus affected by gravity.

 

[Based Chad]

No, that idea is more than 100 years out of date.

Strictly speaking, gravity is the curvature of spacetime which determines how objects move in geodesic paths. That's what the theory of general relativity demonstrated way back in 1915.

(Edit to add 1915 publication date of theory of general relativity)

gravity is not a curvature.

a curvature is a shape.

 

[Based Chad]

That was an excellent pivot. You are still mistaken.

Until Isaac Newton expressed his theory unambiguously, nobody knew what the correct theory was.

Yes, the force we call "gravity" existed prior to Isaac Newton creating the science. This is not what you were saying.
Yes, people understood how things could fall when dropped. This is not what you were saying.
No, nobody knew what the theory of gravity was until the theory of gravity was created. You were asserting the opposite.

they might have had their own individual theories.

often things are well know before the white man takes credit for it.