>>16551008

>God makes sure goodness is always increasing so the universe is going to get better and better, there will be more good and less bad as time goes on - and that will always be true!
Ok, God is the one that makes sure goodness is always increasing. But aren't we humans the ones that actually >do< the increase in the amount of goodness? So shouldn't we thank humans for it instead of thanking God, since God only interferes minimally?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Finitism Anon

    If multiple people collaborate to do something nice for you do you just thank one of them?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, we could thank God too, but the majority of the credit wouldn't be for God. That's because the majority of the work would be done by humans, not God. So if say you are still alive that's because people (including yourself) took care of you. If you have what to eat, that's because someone and/or you obtained it. Etc. God is there as a mere maintainer of the increase of goodness. And God would only have credit when it acted (telling prophets first, as you said).

      • 2 months ago
        Finitism Anon

        >we could thank God too, but the majority of the credit wouldn't be for God
        That seems like incredibly strange reasoning to me. Like if I got you a new Bugatti and you started thanking yourself for it since you're the one who pumps the gas into it.

        A human does the vast vast minority of the work for anything. If they make you something, they just arranged matter that God made (spending a few thousand calories at most in comparison to the untold billions of calories of energy present in matter). They did it using energy that ultimately comes from the sun that God gifted them and the ground God made for them. Breathing air that God designed from plants that He invented.

        And it goes much beyond that if we look at IQfytory. Nearly everything we have in modern society that's beyond what they had in the BC era is because God physically came and spent 30 years physically working as a man to lay the foundations for his Kingdom.

        Let's look at one of the best things in your life, the thing nearly everyone from a janitor to a CEO treasures: the weekend! We have weekends because God founded Christendom. Unless Christianity had come, this never would have happened. People in most cultures laboured every day of their lives (barring of course special events and occasional holidays). This included he Romans, who largely saw taking the Sabbath off as laziness to be condemned. For example, Tacitus, in his Histories, Book 5, section 4 describes such rests as arising because the Hebrews were “led by the charms of indolence”.

        But we see workers getting a mandatory weekend quite early in Christianity once it finally got the political power to make such laws. For example, in the 500’s, the Council of Auxerre decreed that “no man should be suffered to…do any manner of work upon the Sunday”, as you can read here: http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-8/LIBRARY/HEY_HOSB.PDF

        Modern science and industry come from Christendom, and Christendom from Christ.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That seems like incredibly strange reasoning to me. Like if I got you a new Bugatti and you started thanking yourself for it since you're the one who pumps the gas into it.
          >A human does the vast vast minority of the work for anything. If they make you something, they just arranged matter that God made (spending a few thousand calories at most in comparison to the untold billions of calories of energy present in matter). They did it using energy that ultimately comes from the sun that God gifted them and the ground God made for them. Breathing air that God designed from plants that He invented.
          I say that the universe gaven by God is not as good as a Bugatti should represent in the metaphor, and to increase its goodness we need mostly human work.
          I'm not talking about work to create the universe, to make it a better place, to increase the goodness in it. You said that God always does the minimum for that and humans do all the rest of the job. I agree that God has more credit for creating the universe than we do, I'm just saying this isn't the case for increasing goodness.
          >weekends
          I'm confused now, shouldn't God face infinite regression when trying to do a good that isn't the minimum possible? Bit anyway, let's consider them. They're surely important, but what about world peace, protection from diseases, suicide, martyrdom etc? God just ignored these? Because as far as I understood, we humans are the ones responsible to solving these other problems.

          >about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, isn't it contradictory to the idea that goodness is increasing?

          The second law of thermodynamics is probably inevitable in any closed system whatsoever since the only alternative seems to be something that could generate energy out of nothing, and only an omnipotent being could do that, and there can only be one of those

          >It seems that the universe is getting more chaotic and goodness is decreasing, no?

          The total amount of potential usable energy in the universe is constantly going down, but that doesn't mean that other variables (like goodness) can't be increasing as that happens.

          However you are absolutely correct that the universe as a whole is winding down. This is to get rid of evil. Evil is something that, if allowed to grow, would ultimately make it impossible for good to grow, like a weed choking out crops. As such, destroying evil is a necessity to ensure the growth of good.

          Scripture makes it clear that decay and death came into the world because evil did. Romans 5:12 for instance states that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin".

          Things cannot be destroyed in a world without destruction, so once evil came, the initial state of permanence and indestructibility in Eden would have needed to end. All things are now gradually decaying and winding down to destruction, ensuring that evil is inevitably destroyed. Given enough time, current processes ensure thorough destruction: every star in the sky will go out and every bond in every molecule will break. Scripture is well aware of this: as it says in Isaiah 51:6 that just like clothes eventually wear out, so too will the heavens and the Earth.

          Once decay has done its job, God will re-resurrect the good that had also been destroyed by decay. This process ensures the removal of evil while also preserving all good, guaranteeing that good continues to grow even when evil, which would otherwise choke it out, has entered the world.

          >The second law of thermodynamics is probably inevitable in any closed system whatsoever since the only alternative seems to be something that could generate energy out of nothing, and only an omnipotent being could do that, and there can only be one of those
          Right, so why wouldn't God generate energy out of nothing to prevent things like cancers?
          (1/2)

          • 2 months ago
            Finitism Anon

            >I say that the universe gaven by God is not as good as a Bugatti should represent
            Indeed - it's MUCH better! Air, light, water, flesh, senses - all significantly better gifts than a vehicle

            >to increase its goodness we need mostly human work.
            Humans left to their own devices can't manage anything greater than constantly feuding bronze age states. We need all of the utterly gargantuan quantity of infrastructure God created and we've demonstrated quite clearly that we need His guidance on top of that

            >I'm confused now, shouldn't God face infinite regression when trying to do a good that isn't the minimum possible?
            We don't know what the true definition of "good" is (or at least I don't), exactly, so figuring out what specifically that is isn't possible for most scenarios at the moment

            >God just ignored these
            God's always aware of everything, but can't have a standard for action that involves directly making most situations better. Only evils that threaten good's increase as a whole can be directly acted on.

            >Right, so why wouldn't God generate energy out of nothing to prevent things like cancers?
            Why wouldn't he do it to give them perfect health on top of that?
            Why wouldn't he do it to give them peak human physical and mental condition on top of that?
            Why wouldn't he do it to elevate them to angels on top of that?
            Why wouldn't he do it to elevate them to archangels on top on that?
            Why wouldn't he do it to elevate them to second-level archangels on top of that?
            ...

            Do you see the issue that arises with this sort of standard?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Air, light, water, flesh, senses - all significantly better gifts than a vehicle
            Given to whom? Not everyone has quality air, light (think of blind people for example), clean water, health and pleasant sensations. So it's not a rule that these things represent something good to everyone.
            >We need all of the utterly gargantuan quantity of infrastructure God created and we've demonstrated quite clearly that we need His guidance on top of that
            What infrastructure are you talking about? I thought it was built by humans.
            >We don't know what the true definition of "good" is (or at least I don't), exactly, so figuring out what specifically that is isn't possible for most scenarios at the moment
            Even not knowing the definition we can agree that God would do good and not bad, right? Now the question is how that didn't imply the infinite regression in the case of creating weekends.
            >Only evils that threaten good's increase as a whole can be directly acted on.
            So were the non-existence of weekends a case of evil that threatened good's increase as a whole? It seems strange that that was such a case but not the existence of war, disease, suicide, martyrdom etc.
            >(...) Why wouldn't he do it to elevate them to second-level archangels on top of that?
            >Do you see the issue that arises with this sort of standard?
            I see, but maybe that was something that would in fact threaten good's increase. How would we know?

            >How would that happen? How could God or we increase goodness with the usable energy decreasing?
            Let's use human happiness as a way to measure goodness (they're not identical of course but it seems like a decent proxy value).

            Every moment there are large numbers of people experiencing happiness, adding to the total quantity of happiness that has ever been experienced. Even though total usable energy diminishes, total happiness ever experienced continues a constant increase.

            If the last bit of energy were to run out, that very instant God would cause the resurrection, setting the present amount of goodness to the total amount that has ever existed. To illustrate that using our proxy value, we might say that would look like making every happy moment ever experienced by any person exist again in a permanent way

            >It seems like we could do it for some time, but ultimately just chaos (and consequently a decrease in goodness) would prevail.
            Very correct! The Bible talks about that. That's when the resurrection of all good will come

            >Let's use human happiness as a way to measure goodness (they're not identical of course but it seems like a decent proxy value).
            Wouldn't "goodness=happiness-sadness" be a better definition?
            >Every moment there are large numbers of people experiencing happiness, adding to the total quantity of happiness that has ever been experienced.
            Yes, but wouldn't it also be possible that the value "happiness minus sadness" would decrease over time (because the total sadness would increase over time)?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Given to whom?
            You keep talking about where you should place your gratitude, so given to you

            Even if you don't want to be grateful to someone for making those things (seems petty to me) I mean you're not _required_ to be, Romans 10:9 says that to be saved the minimum you have to do is say Jesus is your lord and believe that God resurrected him. Gratitude is good of course but you don't _have_ to have it

            >What infrastructure are you talking about?
            A planet, a body, a sun, stable laws of physics, an ecosystem - all the things God gave His children

            >Now the question is how that didn't imply the infinite regression in the case of creating weekends.
            Once we learn what goodness truly is we should be able to full-on calculate the reason

            >So were the non-existence of weekends a case of evil that threatened good's increase as a whole?
            Nah, they were instituted at the very beginning when God first created the world. It does imply there's something foundational and essential about a Sabbath to good's growth. Perhaps some side or aspect of good wouldn't grow in a Sabbathless Eden

            >It seems strange that that was such a case but not the existence of war, disease, suicide, martyrdom etc.
            There weren't any of those originally either

            War/violence however DID get to that level according to Genesis, and was the reason God had to step in and send the Flood

            >but maybe that was something that would in fact threaten good's increase. How would we know?
            To be sure about the answer to that we'll have to figure out what goodness really truly is - that is, what value a being whose existence comes from the laws of logic themselves would seek to increase

            >Wouldn't "goodness=happiness-sadness" be a better definition?
            It's not a definition at all, just a proxy variable.
            And no it wouldn't, sadness is its own independent thing. It doesn't somehow cancel out happiness elsewhere in a literal direct mathematical sense

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You keep talking about where you should place your gratitude, so given to you
            If a father gives food to you but not to your brother, do you express gratitute or dissatisfaction due to the inequality? I was lucky to have quality air, clean water, vision to see light, and functional other senses. But what about other people? Feeling gratitude just for my case would be unjust and selfish.
            >There weren't any of those originally either
            Yes, I'm including post-Eden. None of them would get to the level of preventing some good to grow, but the lack of weekends would? That's what I find strange. Are you saying that given this data, we can only know that it's how it is, but not why? Is this it?
            >It's not a definition at all, just a proxy variable.
            >And no it wouldn't, sadness is its own independent thing. It doesn't somehow cancel out happiness elsewhere in a literal direct mathematical sense
            Why not? Isn't sadness the opposite of happiness? Why did you choose happiness as a proxy value for goodness then?

          • 2 months ago
            Finitism Anon

            >Feeling gratitude just for my case would be unjust and selfish.
            Can you lay me out the standard you're using for determining when you like and don't like to be grateful for things?

            >None of them would get to the level of preventing some good to grow, but the lack of weekends would?
            The Sabbath is for a different kind of activity altogether than the other days so would that be surprising? The true identity of goodness could be something that, from our perspective, would look complex and require a multifaceted approach to truly increase

            >Are you saying that given this data, we can only know that it's how it is, but not why?
            That's extremely common in any area you study. As you get deeper you quickly hit the "we're not sure yet, more research is needed" wall. Which should be exciting since now you know what you'd like to find out and how to frame the question, which is half the battle

            >Why not?
            Well like I said, it doesn't somehow cancel out happiness elsewhere in a literal direct mathematical sense. If there's an unknown society of very sad goths in the moon where absolutely nobody is happy that doesn't somehow make someone here not in a happy state

            If your restore all of the happiness that's ever existed, the sad moon goths wouldn't mean you have less to restore from Earth

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Can you lay me out the standard you're using for determining when you like and don't like to be grateful for things?
            Sure, I don't like it when it's unjust for people in general.
            >The true identity of goodness could be something that, from our perspective, would look complex and require a multifaceted approach to truly increase
            I know, it's just strange to me that nothing of that approach includes those other items I cited, when they seem as serious or even more serious than the existence of the Sabbath. But I think I get that we would want to know what the Good is to understand those actions of God.
            >If there's an unknown society of very sad goths in the moon where absolutely nobody is happy that doesn't somehow make someone here not in a happy state
            That would mean that, considering the Earth and the Moon, the percentage of happy people is a bit reduced from what it would be if no one on the Earth and Moon was sad. Now you can, and it would be more relevant, of course, to just consider the Earth. The sad people on Earth make a negative impact on the percentage of happy people. So there would be a negative impact on the value of goodness as well, as least considering total happiness as the proxy value.

          • 2 months ago
            Finitism Anon

            >Sure, I don't like it when it's unjust for people in general.
            Pretty bad standard. Has anyone ever given you a gift that was part of some perfectly equal gift to all humanity?

            >it's just strange to me that nothing of that approach includes those other items I cited
            Doesn't it though? The Sabbath was instituted at the beginning, and at the beginning there wasn't any sickness or war or the other things you brought up either.

            >That would mean that, considering the Earth and the Moon, the percentage of
            Who said anything about percentages? The total quantity of the value is what's important. If it was percentages then nothing ever would have been made since God is already 100% good

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Has anyone ever given you a gift that was part of some perfectly equal gift to all humanity?
            Not to all of humanity because it would be very hard, but gifts to everyone present in the moment, yes. Gratitude afterall is an act of approval. I'm just saying that I don't approve the action of choosing specific people to give gifts as basic as air, water, light and senses and not giving them to the other people present too (in the case of God and the universe, all of humanity would be present).
            >Doesn't it though? The Sabbath was instituted at the beginning, and at the beginning there wasn't any sickness or war or the other things you brought up either.
            What difference does it make the moment? They existed after Eden. The fact is that these things could prevent good to grow, depending on what is the Good of course.
            >Who said anything about percentages? The total quantity of the value is what's important. If it was percentages then nothing ever would have been made since God is already 100% good
            If one people were happy and the rest not-happy (let's say sad), would you consider the happiness of that one person and ignore the sadness of the rest or take the percentage of happy people over the rest?

          • 2 months ago
            Finitism Anon

            >Not to all of humanity because it would be very hard, but gifts to everyone present in the moment, yes
            But you yourself have never been individually given a gift and were grateful for it?

            > I don't approve the action of choosing specific people to give gifts as basic as air, water, light and senses and not giving them to the other people present too
            Isn't the entire point of everything that's been said about God only rarely being able to directly improve situations that that isn't what happens? If everything had stayed as Eden then this would be the case.

            If someone bought you a Christmas present but the Grinch shot you on Christmas Eve so you never got it, isn't it still true that they got a gift for you? Circumstance just prevented you from claiming it

            >The fact is that these things could prevent good to grow
            Like I said earlier that has been the case with war before and God has acted directly in those situations. But usually it's not fundamentally different from people dying any other way: tragic but not a worldwide threat.

            >If one people were happy and the rest not-happy (let's say sad), would you consider the happiness of that one person and ignore the sadness of the rest or take the percentage of happy people over the rest?

            If we're looking to calculate the sum total of happiness then yes of course you ignore sadness in your calculations. Happiness describes a certain neural state of brains and it can be physically measured.

            Someone being sad is as relevant to that calculation as any other object that doesn't contain any happiness

            Let's look at a different value since you seem to really be getting hung up on the emotional aspect of that illustration. Let's say goodness could be measures with the number of words ever spoken or written. Would wordless blank sheets of paper or unspeaking rocks somehow subtract from that total? Of course not. They're areas where there isn't growth but don't somehow erase words being generated elsewhere

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But you yourself have never been individually given a gift and were grateful for it?
            I have, but of course after all the basic things were already been given to everyone present there. Air, water, light and senses are basic, though not given by God to everyone.
            >Isn't the entire point of everything that's been said about God only rarely being able to directly improve situations that that isn't what happens? If everything had stayed as Eden then this would be the case.
            >If someone bought you a Christmas present but the Grinch shot you on Christmas Eve so you never got it, isn't it still true that they got a gift for you? Circumstance just prevented you from claiming it
            I don't get it, are you saying that these things (air, water, light and senses) were given to everyone in Eden, and then after Eden these gifts were "lost" somehow? But humanity (apart from Adam and Eve) didn't even exist in Eden.
            >Let's say goodness could be measures with the number of words ever spoken or written.
            That's the point. Isn't it an arbitrary proxy value? Why couldn't it be the difference between two other values like number of words and blank sheets of paper or happiness and sadness? I get that the second value doesn't substract from the first, but it would be just another arbitrary proxy value for goodness.

          • 2 months ago
            Finitism Anon

            >I have
            Were you grateful for it?

            >Air, water, light and senses are basic, though not given by God to everyone.
            Who will never receive these from God? Even if someone didn't get them during their time here they'll get them in the resurrection

            >I don't get it, are you saying that these things (air, water, light and senses) were given to everyone in Eden, and then after Eden these gifts were "lost" somehow?
            Correct, the plan was for everyone to live in an Edenic world. No evil would have meant everyone would have so far.

            >Isn't it an arbitrary proxy value?
            Yeah o_o How else are we supposed to talk about it if we're not sure what the true value is yet?

            >Why couldn't it be the difference between two other values like number of words and blank sheets of paper or happiness and sadness?
            If it were something like that then no world would have ever been made since God is already completely good, so if it was just making something 100% good exist, that was already the case. A world only needs to be made if good is a value that other things can actually increase.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Were you grateful for it?
            Yes, because it was just (to others too).
            >Who will never receive these from God? Even if someone didn't get them during their time here they'll get them in the resurrection
            Who guarantees? You said that "Once decay has done its job, God will re-resurrect the good that had also been destroyed by decay." and "If the last bit of energy were to run out, that very instant God would cause the resurrection, setting the present amount of goodness to the total amount that has ever existed". So how would a good never done be resurrected?
            >Correct, the plan was for everyone to live in an Edenic world. No evil would have meant everyone would have so far.
            This "evil" that you're talking about is what happened in the Fall? If yes, how exactly did that affect what God could give to humans?
            >Yeah o_o How else are we supposed to talk about it if we're not sure what the true value is yet?
            Think about it this way: you arbitrarily chose the proxy value "happiness". But why did you choose it in specific?
            >A world only needs to be made if good is a value that other things can actually increase.
            And the can't the value of the difference between happiness and sadness increase?

          • 2 months ago
            Finitism Anon

            >Yes, because it was just (to others too).
            You said it was individually given, to you. You've never received any gift that was "just" in the way you're talking about because no person has ever given a gift to every person in the world. (At least since our population has been more than a few hundred, anyway). Every gift ever given in the past few thousand years has been to a specific person or a portion of people. By your reasoning no one should ever really be grateful for anything. Especially today when you really can spread a gift around among vast numbers of people (just go to https://www.givedirectly.org/ and you can give to tons of people)

            Ultimately there isn't some rational equation for gratitude, it's something you choose to have or not to have.

            >So how would a good never done be resurrected?
            Every person is themselves a good, and they'll be resurrected and will be part of the resurrected world.

            >If yes, how exactly did that affect what God could give to humans?
            Evil coming into the world means decay needs to come into the world, which means things like that some people are going to have eyes more decayed than others and so be blind and not be able to see the light.

            >you arbitrarily chose the proxy value "happiness". But why did you choose it in specific?
            Generally speaking happiness is our personal evaluation of how good our situation is; much like we guesstimate temperature with our sense of touch or sound energy with our sense of hearing. So it's probably a pretty decent proxy variable.

            >And the can't the value of the difference between happiness and sadness increase?
            If that's measured as the ratio of happiness to sadness and there's any happiness but 0 sadness then no

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >By your reasoning no one should ever really be grateful for anything.
            I mean, we casually say that we're grateful to gifts, but should we really approve being given them when probably other people would need them more? But I think I get that God >intended to give< these gifts to everyone and it was just that the post-Edenic world had the decay in it.
            >Every person is themselves a good, and they'll be resurrected and will be part of the resurrected world.
            And will their state be as of in the Edenic world (the blind will see, the waterless will have water etc)?
            >If that's measured as the ratio of happiness to sadness and there's any happiness but 0 sadness then no
            But surely the amount of sadness is not only different than zero but also possibly increasing. How would we know if it's not increasing?

          • 2 months ago
            Finitism Anon

            >But I think I get that God >intended to give< these gifts to everyone and it was just that the post-Edenic world had the decay in it.
            Precisely!!!! And then when it's restored in the resurrection, everyone will finally have them.

            >And will their state be as of in the Edenic world (the blind will see, the waterless will have water etc)?
            For sure! Isaiah 35:5-6 says "Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deafunstopped. Then will the lameleap like a deer, and the mute tongueshout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streamsin the desert."

            I really like what the Talmud (often flawed but sometimes wise) says about this verse at https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.91b.9?lang=bi&with=all "When resurrected, the dead will arise still afflicted with their defects, and they will then be healed.", which conveniently avoids an issue with direct improvement in the resurrection process.

            >But surely the amount of sadness is not only different than zero but also possibly increasing. How would we know if it's not increasing?
            In total it probably is as the population grows

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Precisely!!!! And then when it's restored in the resurrection, everyone will finally have them.
            >For sure! Isaiah 35:5-6 says "Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deafunstopped. Then will the lameleap like a deer, and the mute tongueshout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streamsin the desert."
            >I really like what the Talmud (often flawed but sometimes wise) says about this verse at https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.91b.9?lang=bi&with=all "When resurrected, the dead will arise still afflicted with their defects, and they will then be healed.", which conveniently avoids an issue with direct improvement in the resurrection process.
            Interesting, I didn't know that (I never read the OT or the Talmud besides the majority of Job). So after the resurrection, comes judgement, right? So anyway it's not everyone who would enjoy their new Edenic state in Heaven, right?
            >In total it probably is as the population grows
            So the value of the subtraction between happiness and sadness would decrease, no?

            Does it make sense to pray for God's help since as you said "God's always aware of everything, but can't have a standard for action that involves directly making most situations better. Only evils that threaten good's increase as a whole can be directly acted on."?

            Also, suppose you are robbed but the robber doesn't take your life. Do you thank God? If yes, for what exactly? I don't get exactly the role of God in situations like these where sure, God created everything but doesn't seem to have taken any direct action to help you at the specific moment.

          • 2 months ago
            Finitism Anon

            >I never read the OT or the Talmud besides the majority of Job
            I really think the best place to start reading the Bible is John, since much of the rest presupposes you're familiar with the OT...but John feels very universal, like it's written to be people's introduction to it as it leaves the borders of Israel

            >So after the resurrection, comes judgement, right?
            It seems like judgement is a multi-step process. The resurrection process, itself, appears to be one part of it: the process itself has an effect on you depending on your evil. Afterall, if God is re-creating you, and God will never create evil, but much of you is evil...the effect is apparently very undesirable

            >So anyway it's not everyone who would enjoy their new Edenic state in Heaven, right?
            I honestly think even Hell is going to be better than the world is now. Sure your resurrected self has taken a permanent hit and you've been kicked to the boonies, but you're still in a world now that has no death, disease, or damage - I'm sure you can work with it P:

            >So the value of the subtraction between happiness and sadness would decrease, no?
            As the population grows both the total quantity of sadness and the total quantity of happiness likely grow (there are single countries now with the population the entire world had in Roman times). Their ratio probably fluctuates over time depending on what exactly is going on in the world (during World Wars or plagues for instance you probably have a more sad world than prior to or after those events)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also, about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, isn't it contradictory to the idea that goodness is increasing? It seems that the universe is getting more chaotic and goodness is decreasing, no?

      And since its invention was an act of God, what prophet did God tell about it?

      • 2 months ago
        Finitism Anon

        >about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, isn't it contradictory to the idea that goodness is increasing?

        The second law of thermodynamics is probably inevitable in any closed system whatsoever since the only alternative seems to be something that could generate energy out of nothing, and only an omnipotent being could do that, and there can only be one of those

        >It seems that the universe is getting more chaotic and goodness is decreasing, no?

        The total amount of potential usable energy in the universe is constantly going down, but that doesn't mean that other variables (like goodness) can't be increasing as that happens.

        However you are absolutely correct that the universe as a whole is winding down. This is to get rid of evil. Evil is something that, if allowed to grow, would ultimately make it impossible for good to grow, like a weed choking out crops. As such, destroying evil is a necessity to ensure the growth of good.

        Scripture makes it clear that decay and death came into the world because evil did. Romans 5:12 for instance states that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin".

        Things cannot be destroyed in a world without destruction, so once evil came, the initial state of permanence and indestructibility in Eden would have needed to end. All things are now gradually decaying and winding down to destruction, ensuring that evil is inevitably destroyed. Given enough time, current processes ensure thorough destruction: every star in the sky will go out and every bond in every molecule will break. Scripture is well aware of this: as it says in Isaiah 51:6 that just like clothes eventually wear out, so too will the heavens and the Earth.

        Once decay has done its job, God will re-resurrect the good that had also been destroyed by decay. This process ensures the removal of evil while also preserving all good, guaranteeing that good continues to grow even when evil, which would otherwise choke it out, has entered the world.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          (2/2)
          >The total amount of potential usable energy in the universe is constantly going down, but that doesn't mean that other variables (like goodness) can't be increasing as that happens.
          How would that happen? How could God or we increase goodness with the usable energy decreasing? It seems like we could do it for some time, but ultimately just chaos (and consequently a decrease in goodness) would prevail.
          >The world will be destroyed to get rid of evil.
          Couldn't God only destroy evil individually?

          • 2 months ago
            Finitism Anon

            >How would that happen? How could God or we increase goodness with the usable energy decreasing?
            Let's use human happiness as a way to measure goodness (they're not identical of course but it seems like a decent proxy value).

            Every moment there are large numbers of people experiencing happiness, adding to the total quantity of happiness that has ever been experienced. Even though total usable energy diminishes, total happiness ever experienced continues a constant increase.

            If the last bit of energy were to run out, that very instant God would cause the resurrection, setting the present amount of goodness to the total amount that has ever existed. To illustrate that using our proxy value, we might say that would look like making every happy moment ever experienced by any person exist again in a permanent way

            >It seems like we could do it for some time, but ultimately just chaos (and consequently a decrease in goodness) would prevail.
            Very correct! The Bible talks about that. That's when the resurrection of all good will come

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >God makes sure goodness is always increasing so the universe is going to get better and better
    instead of creating the universe perfectly good at first try.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bump

    • 2 months ago
      Finitism Anon

      >Does it make sense to pray for God's help

      In Luke 11:1 someone asks Jesus "Lord, teach us to pray", and he responds with how to pray. The only thing his prayer there says to ask for help with is "And forgive us our sins, for we also are forgiving everyone being indebted to us. And do not bring us into temptation".

      And prayer does help with those! God genuinely will forgive you if you ask him, and prayer helps you to be forgiving and to resist temptations.

      >suppose you are robbed but the robber doesn't take your life. Do you thank God? If yes, for what exactly?

      I would! Who created people's sense of mercy or compassion that kept the robber from going all the way? Or, if he didn't do it because he was afraid of the law catching up to him, who created the sense of justice in humans that leads them to make such systems and whose teachings enabled us to make a society that can do things like analyze DNA and fingerprints to find murderers?

      Whatever the reason was the robber didn't do it, it goes back to God, like all good things

      >God created everything but doesn't seem to have taken any direct action to help you at the specific moment

      Well hey...you never know! Perhaps your survival is critical to one day the device being made that keeps an asteroid from slamming into Earth and killing everybody and so it was necessary in that moment to ensure you stayed alive.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *