Not really. As you point out, God created the angel Lucifer, who at some point decided he wanted to be God and rebelled, along with many other angels. I view evil as the absence of good, in the same way the darkness is the absence of light. I don't claim to completely understand it, but that is the best analogy I have come up with.
As a sibling points out, God created creatures with a choice of whether or not to follow Him. Which would you prefer, that someone love you because they have no choice, or would you rather they choose to love you when they could hate you? Which is the greater love?
I like your openness on the subject and willingness to ask questions and I would love to talk with you sometime about what I believe, if you are interested. Message me or reply to this or something (there is a way to do that on here, right? I'm usually more just an observer).
Disclaimer: What I write here is what I believe. I shall present it as fact, though, because, 1. I think it is, and 2. It is just easier to write it that way. You have a right to disagree and I have a right to express my opinion.:-)
I disagree with you in your conclusion, but I think you are not all that far off in some ways.
One thing to consider in your thoughts is that God is perfectly Just. He cannot tolerate sin (wrongdoing, something that is contrary to His nature) to the point that He cannot let any sin go unpunished. And God has declared that the soul that sins must die (a spiritual death in Hell). God has the perfect right to condemn someone to Hell for anything. Thankfully there is more to God than just His Justice.
Here is one place you are somewhat close. Hell was not created for us (humans) but for the angels that rebelled against God (Satan, aka the Devil, and the demons). After we humans began sinning against God, it also became the destination for us as enemies of God.
I agree with you that the most hurtful thing a son can do is deny his father. And that is the only thing that causes a person to go to Hell, denying God. Actually, to be completely correct, it is denying God's Son. But He is Himself also God, and "denying God" fits better with what you said:-). God doesn't condemn people to Hell, they refuse to accept the only escape from it. In fact, God does not want to send anyone to Hell, that is why He provided a Way out. But if people reject that Way, His Justice demands that they pay the penalty.
Well, that is all I wish to put here on Slashdot for now. As I said, I'd be glad to talk further about it (this goes for anyone who seriously wants to know). I left out some important details, but you can find everything in the Bible if you are impatient:-).
"How about the possibility of 'created that way'?"
Unfortunately, this one is highly improbable, not to mention logically problematic. First the probability.
If something were created, there would have to be a more complex entity than the creation existent to have created it. Since complex entities, by definition, arrive late in the game, the concept is shown to be very improbable. What do you mean by "complex entities, by definition, arrive late in the game"? You seem to be assuming a lot. If there is a "complex entity" that created us, why does it necessarily have to "arrive" at all? (more about this below) If it is improbable that some "complex entity" that could have created us exists, then why is it not also improbable that we humans (being rather complex ourselves) exist?
As for the logical problem: if there was a complex entity to create this complex universe before it started, what created it? You can't actually answer that without exposing the relationship that intelligent design hold with scripture. Why does the "complex entity" need something to have created it? You either have to regress infinitely (something greater created the "complex entity," which itself must have been created by something greater, etc.), or you eventually have to come to something that was not created. We can apply this more broadly. Where did all the matter/energy in the universe come from? Either it is infinite, or at some point it was created.
'Course, I should know better than to try and argue with someone who thinks ID is a reasonable avenue of inquiry. As above, including creation - or 'design' as has attempted to get snuck in - in scientific inquiry would be a bit like including electricity in theistic inquiry. It simply doesn't make sense, and is kind of a waste of time. Why shouldn't electricity be included in theistic inquiry? If the world was created by God, then electricity is part of that creation and studying it would be part of studying that creation. Does the creation not tell something about the creator?
Consider for a moment that we and the universe was created by some "complex entity" and we knew that for a fact (work with me, just suppose it, okay?:-)). Would it make sense to study the universe without regard to the "complex entity" that created it? Would that not help us narrow the possibilities in some avenues of study if we knew something about this creator?
The most common argument of evidence for design is the makeup of DNA. Couldn't have gotten that way from chance, could it?
Well, no. But here's a task. Look into a bit of genetic 'black box' programming, apply your new understanding to that of natural selection, and get back to me. Genetic programming is an interesting field, and honestly I do not know much about it. But chew on these questions: Did the algorithms used in genetic programming happen by chance? What about the computer they are running on? Are there no parameters needed to be specified by someone? Has it ever happened that while trying to solve one problem with a genetic algorithm, it went on to solve another problem? Remember if we are going to rely completely on chance, any "intelligence" or outside influence at all must be removed. If you want true chance, stream some random bits through your processor as instructions and see how far it gets with that.
Actually, here it is illegal to pass on the right, and illegal to use the left lane as a traveling lane
Actually, that depends on what state you are in. In Alabama, for example, it is legal to pass on the right (though the driving handbooks do advise you to be careful when doing so, as it is illegal in some states and might catch an out-of-state driver off guard).
...are they not supposed to describe in detail how it works? Part of how "Interestingness" works is that no one knows exactly how it is determined, so that it is difficult for someone to exploit the system. Also, the exact combination of inputs changes regularly to keep things... um, interesting. Is it really enough for them to loosely describe a system where they automatically determine a rating from a collection of inputs to get a patent? And if so, should it be? It seems just about anything can get a patent now, which is really a shame. I think the patent system could work just fine if it were managed properly, but in its current state, it certainly seems like it is hurting more than helping innovation...
--
plasmoidia
Uhh, am I missing something? Any sensible OS should not allow a program to write to a full disk. Period. It should return from the fwrite (or equivalent) syscall with a failure and the worst that would possibly happen is the program would crash because it did not handle that correctly (well, aside from losing the data that the program was desperately trying to write). If it decides to start randomly overwriting already allocated disk blocks, then that is a very poorly written OS indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Very cool quotes. I like C.S. Lewis and need to read more of his writings. I just said a very similar thing in one of my posts.
Not really. As you point out, God created the angel Lucifer, who at some point decided he wanted to be God and rebelled, along with many other angels. I view evil as the absence of good, in the same way the darkness is the absence of light. I don't claim to completely understand it, but that is the best analogy I have come up with.
As a sibling points out, God created creatures with a choice of whether or not to follow Him. Which would you prefer, that someone love you because they have no choice, or would you rather they choose to love you when they could hate you? Which is the greater love?
I like your openness on the subject and willingness to ask questions and I would love to talk with you sometime about what I believe, if you are interested. Message me or reply to this or something (there is a way to do that on here, right? I'm usually more just an observer).
:-)
:-). God doesn't condemn people to Hell, they refuse to accept the only escape from it. In fact, God does not want to send anyone to Hell, that is why He provided a Way out. But if people reject that Way, His Justice demands that they pay the penalty.
:-).
Disclaimer: What I write here is what I believe. I shall present it as fact, though, because, 1. I think it is, and 2. It is just easier to write it that way. You have a right to disagree and I have a right to express my opinion.
I disagree with you in your conclusion, but I think you are not all that far off in some ways.
One thing to consider in your thoughts is that God is perfectly Just. He cannot tolerate sin (wrongdoing, something that is contrary to His nature) to the point that He cannot let any sin go unpunished. And God has declared that the soul that sins must die (a spiritual death in Hell). God has the perfect right to condemn someone to Hell for anything. Thankfully there is more to God than just His Justice.
Here is one place you are somewhat close. Hell was not created for us (humans) but for the angels that rebelled against God (Satan, aka the Devil, and the demons). After we humans began sinning against God, it also became the destination for us as enemies of God.
I agree with you that the most hurtful thing a son can do is deny his father. And that is the only thing that causes a person to go to Hell, denying God. Actually, to be completely correct, it is denying God's Son. But He is Himself also God, and "denying God" fits better with what you said
Well, that is all I wish to put here on Slashdot for now. As I said, I'd be glad to talk further about it (this goes for anyone who seriously wants to know). I left out some important details, but you can find everything in the Bible if you are impatient
Unfortunately, this one is highly improbable, not to mention logically problematic. First the probability.
If something were created, there would have to be a more complex entity than the creation existent to have created it. Since complex entities, by definition, arrive late in the game, the concept is shown to be very improbable.
What do you mean by "complex entities, by definition, arrive late in the game"? You seem to be assuming a lot. If there is a "complex entity" that created us, why does it necessarily have to "arrive" at all? (more about this below) If it is improbable that some "complex entity" that could have created us exists, then why is it not also improbable that we humans (being rather complex ourselves) exist? As for the logical problem: if there was a complex entity to create this complex universe before it started, what created it? You can't actually answer that without exposing the relationship that intelligent design hold with scripture.
Why does the "complex entity" need something to have created it? You either have to regress infinitely (something greater created the "complex entity," which itself must have been created by something greater, etc.), or you eventually have to come to something that was not created. We can apply this more broadly. Where did all the matter/energy in the universe come from? Either it is infinite, or at some point it was created. 'Course, I should know better than to try and argue with someone who thinks ID is a reasonable avenue of inquiry. As above, including creation - or 'design' as has attempted to get snuck in - in scientific inquiry would be a bit like including electricity in theistic inquiry. It simply doesn't make sense, and is kind of a waste of time.
Why shouldn't electricity be included in theistic inquiry? If the world was created by God, then electricity is part of that creation and studying it would be part of studying that creation. Does the creation not tell something about the creator?
Consider for a moment that we and the universe was created by some "complex entity" and we knew that for a fact (work with me, just suppose it, okay?
Well, no. But here's a task. Look into a bit of genetic 'black box' programming, apply your new understanding to that of natural selection, and get back to me.
Genetic programming is an interesting field, and honestly I do not know much about it. But chew on these questions: Did the algorithms used in genetic programming happen by chance? What about the computer they are running on? Are there no parameters needed to be specified by someone? Has it ever happened that while trying to solve one problem with a genetic algorithm, it went on to solve another problem? Remember if we are going to rely completely on chance, any "intelligence" or outside influence at all must be removed. If you want true chance, stream some random bits through your processor as instructions and see how far it gets with that.
...are they not supposed to describe in detail how it works? Part of how "Interestingness" works is that no one knows exactly how it is determined, so that it is difficult for someone to exploit the system. Also, the exact combination of inputs changes regularly to keep things... um, interesting. Is it really enough for them to loosely describe a system where they automatically determine a rating from a collection of inputs to get a patent? And if so, should it be? It seems just about anything can get a patent now, which is really a shame. I think the patent system could work just fine if it were managed properly, but in its current state, it certainly seems like it is hurting more than helping innovation... -- plasmoidia
Uhh, am I missing something? Any sensible OS should not allow a program to write to a full disk. Period. It should return from the fwrite (or equivalent) syscall with a failure and the worst that would possibly happen is the program would crash because it did not handle that correctly (well, aside from losing the data that the program was desperately trying to write). If it decides to start randomly overwriting already allocated disk blocks, then that is a very poorly written OS indeed.