Quote:

---

You don't understand that they are not comparable. One is an inorganic tool created by man using science and physics. The other is part of an organic highly evolved neurological organism, through the laws of physics and biochemistry.

---

TS - "I'll just keep repeating my completely irrelevant point that does nothing except beg the question, and hope that he eventually gives up after tiring of my stupidity."

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

No, I don't. I am not leaving God's love out of the equation. One can most certainly hold both God's omnipotence and all loving nature together logically.

You still haven't said what level of "suffering" an all powerful God can allow and still be loving. Answer that question and you will be closer to understanding why and how you are wrong to argue that God cannot be both all powerful and all loving.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

In this thread you didn't . Here is his analogy again so you can't miss it unless you choose to.

Coke said, " I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So address it or dodge. Your choice.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

You haven't responded to my question: what level of suffering is permissible in your view (which I believe is mistaken) before God cannot be both all powerful and all loving.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

You yourself are holding those two notions together. Just answer my question and you'll see:

Is God being loving to us, if He wants us to know and experience empathy, compassion, helping others, forgiveness, justice, and mercy, which are a part of love?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

In this thread you didn't . Here is his analogy again so you can't miss it unless you choose to.

Coke said, " I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So address it or dodge. Your choice.

---

That you don't read my responses is your problem, not mine.

Answer the question: what level of suffering is permissible in your view (which I believe is mistaken) before God cannot be both all powerful and all loving?

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

In this thread you didn't . Here is his analogy again so you can't miss it unless you choose to.

Coke said, " I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So address it or dodge. Your choice.

---

That you don't read my responses is your problem, not mine.

---

Coke's analogy
TS
TS
TS
DC
Doc
Tarp
Tarp
Tarp
Your to DC
Me asking you to address Coke's analogy
DC
You saying you've already responded
Me reposting Coke's analogy
DC
Tarp
You claiming you responded

So now is your chance buddy. You either responded on a different thread and don't want to point it out, responded to coke privately or, you have responded but want others to think you did.

The balls in your court

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

In your example you make Waco the builder. Which avoids the point, artlessly.

Your God is the builder, and you claim he built everything. Thus the logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is "Yes, God created everything and everything included evil".

---

How can Christians believe God created everything, if everything includes Himself? In order to create oneself, you must exist before you exist, which is logical nonsense. Obviously, your understanding of what is meant by "everything" is in error.

Even if you mean "everything" as in every conceivable thing outside of God, then it is still logical nonsense. If God IS something, such as "good", then the concept of "that which God is NOT" must also logically exist as a mere consequence of His existence and Him being "good" - it isn't a consequence of His doing, i.e. His "creation". That was the point of the house builder example. Evil is that which God is NOT, so to say that God created evil is nonsensical.

---

God is not good, so that point falls.

---

If God is not good, then by definition God is evil, since evil is defined as that which is not good.

And if God is evil, then He did not create evil, because that would mean He created Himself which is nonsense logic.

So either which way, your view that "God created everything" must mean God created evil since "everything" includes evil, is failed logic.

---

As Quash points out, your logic is not logical. The concept of good and evil is a concept created by man and varies between cultures, just as the concept of a god is created by man dependent upon culture. You could/should say god is created in man's image - through imagination.

---

This comment makes no sense. You're not arguing the logic, you're only disagreeing with the premise. That's what quash had to resort to as well, when he too realized his logic failed.

---

That didn't happen.

But I do have proof of God: now Chick Fila is woke.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

In your example you make Waco the builder. Which avoids the point, artlessly.

Your God is the builder, and you claim he built everything. Thus the logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is "Yes, God created everything and everything included evil".

---

How can Christians believe God created everything, if everything includes Himself? In order to create oneself, you must exist before you exist, which is logical nonsense. Obviously, your understanding of what is meant by "everything" is in error.

Even if you mean "everything" as in every conceivable thing outside of God, then it is still logical nonsense. If God IS something, such as "good", then the concept of "that which God is NOT" must also logically exist as a mere consequence of His existence and Him being "good" - it isn't a consequence of His doing, i.e. His "creation". That was the point of the house builder example. Evil is that which God is NOT, so to say that God created evil is nonsensical.

---

God is not good, so that point falls.

---

If God is not good, then by definition God is evil, since evil is defined as that which is not good.

And if God is evil, then He did not create evil, because that would mean He created Himself which is nonsense logic.

So either which way, your view that "God created everything" must mean God created evil since "everything" includes evil, is failed logic.

---

As Quash points out, your logic is not logical. The concept of good and evil is a concept created by man and varies between cultures, just as the concept of a god is created by man dependent upon culture. You could/should say god is created in man's image - through imagination.

---

The concepts of good and evil do not actually "vary among cultures." While there are particular actions that may be viewed as right in one culture and wrong in another, the idea that right and wrong exist does not vary. Even atheists such as yourself have a belief in right and wrong.

---

You're arguing semantics. The concept of what is good and what is evil varies between cultures. What is considered right and wrong is cultural.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is nonsense. There is every reason to believe through improved technology, research and experimentation, we'll be able to fully understand consciousness. There are a lot of people wasting their careers if you're right. No point in doing any more science. God must have done it.....Science has never found the answer to a scientific question to be god did it. There is only what remains unknown, as of yet. There is no logical reason to support your belief that the remaining unknown is supernatural - god of the gaps. And, there is no logical reason to support your belief that the god in the gaps is the god of your particular version of Christianity.

---

TS - "Scientism of the gaps good. God of the gaps bad"

---

Actually, science fills in and removes God from the gaps.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Turtles all the way down, right?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Turtles all the way down, right?

---

LOL

Well played.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

In your example you make Waco the builder. Which avoids the point, artlessly.

Your God is the builder, and you claim he built everything. Thus the logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is "Yes, God created everything and everything included evil".

---

How can Christians believe God created everything, if everything includes Himself? In order to create oneself, you must exist before you exist, which is logical nonsense. Obviously, your understanding of what is meant by "everything" is in error.

Even if you mean "everything" as in every conceivable thing outside of God, then it is still logical nonsense. If God IS something, such as "good", then the concept of "that which God is NOT" must also logically exist as a mere consequence of His existence and Him being "good" - it isn't a consequence of His doing, i.e. His "creation". That was the point of the house builder example. Evil is that which God is NOT, so to say that God created evil is nonsensical.

---

God is not good, so that point falls.

---

If God is not good, then by definition God is evil, since evil is defined as that which is not good.

And if God is evil, then He did not create evil, because that would mean He created Himself which is nonsense logic.

So either which way, your view that "God created everything" must mean God created evil since "everything" includes evil, is failed logic.

---

As Quash points out, your logic is not logical. The concept of good and evil is a concept created by man and varies between cultures, just as the concept of a god is created by man dependent upon culture. You could/should say god is created in man's image - through imagination.

---

The concepts of good and evil do not actually "vary among cultures." While there are particular actions that may be viewed as right in one culture and wrong in another, the idea that right and wrong exist does not vary. Even atheists such as yourself have a belief in right and wrong.

---

You're arguing semantics. The concept of what is good and what is evil varies between cultures. What is considered right and wrong is cultural.

---

Not mere semantics. Whether good or evil exists is not the same question as to whether a particular action is properly classified as good or evil.

The concept of whether there is good and evil does not vary between cultures, and particular ideas of what is good and what is bad vary a whole lot less than you'd like to think.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Turtles all the way down, right?

---

Turtles all the way down could exist outside of spacetime, but not within it because spacetime can't exist beyond planck scale.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

In your example you make Waco the builder. Which avoids the point, artlessly.

Your God is the builder, and you claim he built everything. Thus the logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is "Yes, God created everything and everything included evil".

---

How can Christians believe God created everything, if everything includes Himself? In order to create oneself, you must exist before you exist, which is logical nonsense. Obviously, your understanding of what is meant by "everything" is in error.

Even if you mean "everything" as in every conceivable thing outside of God, then it is still logical nonsense. If God IS something, such as "good", then the concept of "that which God is NOT" must also logically exist as a mere consequence of His existence and Him being "good" - it isn't a consequence of His doing, i.e. His "creation". That was the point of the house builder example. Evil is that which God is NOT, so to say that God created evil is nonsensical.

---

God is not good, so that point falls.

---

If God is not good, then by definition God is evil, since evil is defined as that which is not good.

And if God is evil, then He did not create evil, because that would mean He created Himself which is nonsense logic.

So either which way, your view that "God created everything" must mean God created evil since "everything" includes evil, is failed logic.

---

As Quash points out, your logic is not logical. The concept of good and evil is a concept created by man and varies between cultures, just as the concept of a god is created by man dependent upon culture. You could/should say god is created in man's image - through imagination.

---

The concepts of good and evil do not actually "vary among cultures." While there are particular actions that may be viewed as right in one culture and wrong in another, the idea that right and wrong exist does not vary. Even atheists such as yourself have a belief in right and wrong.

---

You're arguing semantics. The concept of what is good and what is evil varies between cultures. What is considered right and wrong is cultural.

---

Not mere semantics. Whether good or evil exists is not the same question as to whether a particular action is properly classified as good or evil.

The concept of whether there is good and evil does not vary between cultures, and particular ideas of what is good and what is bad vary a whole lot less than you'd like to think.

---

It depends upon the culture, and those cultures change with time. What is good and bad, as documented in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition and culture varies through time.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Then you have to believe there's no causality to the initial singularity that created the big bang.

You have no evidence of this and it defies logic. By your own standards, that's faith.

You need to explain how the singularity came into existence. Can you do that?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Turtles all the way down, right?

---

Turtles all the way down could exist outside of spacetime, but not within it because spacetime can't exist beyond planck scale.

---

Turtles handle planks just fine, I'm sure they can handle Planck as well.

Just think TMNT ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Turtles all the way down, right?

---

Turtles all the way down could exist outside of spacetime, but not within it because spacetime can't exist beyond planck scale.

---

Turtles handle planks just fine, I'm sure they can handle Planck as well.

Just think TMNT ...

---

lol

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

In this thread you didn't . Here is his analogy again so you can't miss it unless you choose to.

Coke said, " I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So address it or dodge. Your choice.

---

That you don't read my responses is your problem, not mine.

---

Coke's analogy
TS
TS
TS
DC
Doc
Tarp
Tarp
Tarp
Your to DC
Me asking you to address Coke's analogy
DC
You saying you've already responded
Me reposting Coke's analogy
DC
Tarp
You claiming you responded

So now is your chance buddy. You either responded on a different thread and don't want to point it out, responded to coke privately or, you have responded but want others to think you did.

The balls in your court

---

I appreciate your hardwork but my basic question was "What is the analogy? Re-post it here

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I personally blend science and spirituality together. Very much 'Idealism' and Christianity blended.

I'm convinced that consciousness is fundamental reality because of Donald Hoffman's interface theory, amplituhedron/decorated permutations along with math for a conscious agents theory. It also meshes well with the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

You may ask, "how did consciousness come into existence?". I rely on Chris Langan's (195 IQ) CTMU theory which axiomatically shows how the substrate of reality is potential and potential renders syntax (computation/language) which takes on teleologic behavior of constructing consciousness.

What that means is consciousness is using spacetime to experience itself. Space and time emerges like an interface for consciousness to have utility. Our sensory systems are being fed fiction that simplifies a much too complex underlying conscious agents structure for single conscious experience to perform. Also a single experience (humanity) is needed for consciousness to understand/explore itself. So it uses spacetime to simplify things. Like a folder on your computer looks like an icon but its really millions of voltages toggling which you couldn't physically/mentally do. Metaphorically spacetime is akin to that folder and consciousness is akin to the underlying computer making that folder appear.

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality . This provided forgiveness and understanding of our experience.



Humanity is like the egg theory where god has to be every single person that ever existed. Every time you victimized someone, you were victimizing yourself.

When we discuss why there's good/evil etc., the way the world/humanity/universe is constructed is the only logical and capable manner for it to exist and those awful byproducts have to be there if we want to exist in this manner.

---

Consciousness is an organic process. The universe exists regardless of the existence of humans. It existed before humans were even here, or any other conscious organism was here.

Quote:

---

God in my model is the sum of all conscious agents, not necessarily an individual conscious. God made us in his image, we are part of god. Jesus was/is fully conscious: a way for god to experience being a single conscious agent in a duality .

---

Spacetime is inanimate. You really believe your god was unconscious before there were conscious agents in the universe, much less before Jesus gave him that experience?? I think you're in to your own version/sect of Christianity. I don't think Jesus believed or event taught that.

---

There's no concept of time outside of space time. If you removed all the constraints of 3D spacetime, what are you left with?

If nothingness is all there was, then what prompted existence?

---

The Big Bang.

---

The big bang causing the Big Bang is a paradox and makes no sense.

What are you left with prior to the Big Bang?

---

Nothing.

---

Well, I do agree that "nothing": is a succinct description of your evidence on this point, TS.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?

---

In your example you make Waco the builder. Which avoids the point, artlessly.

Your God is the builder, and you claim he built everything. Thus the logical conclusion to be drawn from your argument is "Yes, God created everything and everything included evil".

---

How can Christians believe God created everything, if everything includes Himself? In order to create oneself, you must exist before you exist, which is logical nonsense. Obviously, your understanding of what is meant by "everything" is in error.

Even if you mean "everything" as in every conceivable thing outside of God, then it is still logical nonsense. If God IS something, such as "good", then the concept of "that which God is NOT" must also logically exist as a mere consequence of His existence and Him being "good" - it isn't a consequence of His doing, i.e. His "creation". That was the point of the house builder example. Evil is that which God is NOT, so to say that God created evil is nonsensical.

---

God is not good, so that point falls.

---

If God is not good, then by definition God is evil, since evil is defined as that which is not good.

And if God is evil, then He did not create evil, because that would mean He created Himself which is nonsense logic.

So either which way, your view that "God created everything" must mean God created evil since "everything" includes evil, is failed logic.

---

As Quash points out, your logic is not logical. The concept of good and evil is a concept created by man and varies between cultures, just as the concept of a god is created by man dependent upon culture. You could/should say god is created in man's image - through imagination.

---

The concepts of good and evil do not actually "vary among cultures." While there are particular actions that may be viewed as right in one culture and wrong in another, the idea that right and wrong exist does not vary. Even atheists such as yourself have a belief in right and wrong.

---

You're arguing semantics. The concept of what is good and what is evil varies between cultures. What is considered right and wrong is cultural.

---

Not mere semantics. Whether good or evil exists is not the same question as to whether a particular action is properly classified as good or evil.

The concept of whether there is good and evil does not vary between cultures, and particular ideas of what is good and what is bad vary a whole lot less than you'd like to think.

---

It depends upon the culture, and those cultures change with time. What is good and bad, as documented in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition and culture varies through time.

---

Variations in cultural mores aside, whether good and evil exist does not depend on culture or time.

Whatever objective reality might be, it's not what you see. What you see, according to evolution by natural selection, is just an adaptive fiction. That includes spacetime and all objects within spacetime. They are a user interface, not objective reality.https://t.co/N6BIxtCyaL

— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) June 1, 2023

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is nonsense. There is every reason to believe through improved technology, research and experimentation, we'll be able to fully understand consciousness. There are a lot of people wasting their careers if you're right. No point in doing any more science. God must have done it.....Science has never found the answer to a scientific question to be god did it. There is only what remains unknown, as of yet. There is no logical reason to support your belief that the remaining unknown is supernatural - god of the gaps. And, there is no logical reason to support your belief that the god in the gaps is the god of your particular version of Christianity.

---

TS - "Scientism of the gaps good. God of the gaps bad"

---

Actually, science fills in and removes God from the gaps.

---

But you've utterly failed at giving the science for any of the gaps presented in this thread.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

In this thread you didn't . Here is his analogy again so you can't miss it unless you choose to.

Coke said, " I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So address it or dodge. Your choice.

---

That you don't read my responses is your problem, not mine.

---

Coke's analogy
TS
TS
TS
DC
Doc
Tarp
Tarp
Tarp
Your to DC
Me asking you to address Coke's analogy
DC
You saying you've already responded
Me reposting Coke's analogy
DC
Tarp
You claiming you responded

So now is your chance buddy. You either responded on a different thread and don't want to point it out, responded to coke privately or, you have responded but want others to think you did.

The balls in your court

---

I appreciate your hardwork but my basic question was "What is the analogy? Re-post it here

---

"What is the analogy?" You said you answered it. You said you'd already responded to Coke.

Just quit lying already. Address the analogy

Here it is, AGAIN
Coke said, "I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So, address the analogy.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

In this thread you didn't . Here is his analogy again so you can't miss it unless you choose to.

Coke said, " I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So address it or dodge. Your choice.

---

That you don't read my responses is your problem, not mine.

---

Coke's analogy
TS
TS
TS
DC
Doc
Tarp
Tarp
Tarp
Your to DC
Me asking you to address Coke's analogy
DC
You saying you've already responded
Me reposting Coke's analogy
DC
Tarp
You claiming you responded

So now is your chance buddy. You either responded on a different thread and don't want to point it out, responded to coke privately or, you have responded but want others to think you did.

The balls in your court

---

I appreciate your hard work but my basic question was "What is the analogy? Re-post it here

---

"What is the analogy?" You said you answered it. You said you'd already responded to Coke.

Just quit lying already. Address the analogy

Here it is, AGAIN
Coke said, "I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So, address the analogy.

---

If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

In this thread you didn't . Here is his analogy again so you can't miss it unless you choose to.

Coke said, " I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So address it or dodge. Your choice.

---

That you don't read my responses is your problem, not mine.

---

Coke's analogy
TS
TS
TS
DC
Doc
Tarp
Tarp
Tarp
Your to DC
Me asking you to address Coke's analogy
DC
You saying you've already responded
Me reposting Coke's analogy
DC
Tarp
You claiming you responded

So now is your chance buddy. You either responded on a different thread and don't want to point it out, responded to coke privately or, you have responded but want others to think you did.

The balls in your court

---

I appreciate your hard work but my basic question was "What is the analogy? Re-post it here

---

"What is the analogy?" You said you answered it. You said you'd already responded to Coke.

Just quit lying already. Address the analogy

Here it is, AGAIN
Coke said, "I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So, address the analogy.

---

If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

---

Are you all knowing?

Quote:

---

A farmer and his son had a beloved horse who helped the family earn a living. One day, the horse ran away and their neighbours exclaimed, "Your horse ran away, what terrible luck!" The farmer replied, "Maybe so, maybe not."
A few days later, the horse returned home, leading a few wild horses back to the farm as well. The neighbours shouted out, "Your horse has returned, and brought several horses home with him. What great luck!" The farmer replied, "Maybe so, maybe not."
Later that week, the farmer's son was trying to break one of the horses and she threw him to the ground, breaking his leg. The neighbours cried, "Your son broke his leg, what terrible luck!" The farmer replied, "Maybe so, maybe not."
A few weeks later, soldiers from the national army marched through town, recruiting all boys for the army. They did not take the farmer's son, because he had a broken leg. The neighbours shouted, "Your boy is spared, what tremendous luck!" To which the farmer replied, "Maybe so, maybe not. We'll see."

---

It is really impossible to tell whether anything that happens is good or bad because we do not possess the ability to see how things ultimately work out. You thinking that you know best is sinful and at the least, arrogant.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You said: "Why must no evil exist? God being all-powerful does not mean that he doesn't have to allow evil."

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.
One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Yes, it does, and more than simply hold, both God's total power and absolute love are reflected in all situations, including where there is evil. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world allows God's power and love to be manifested in ways that would not be apparent if evil was not present.

---

You keep leaving out of your equation that God is, also, loving. The dynamic tension between love and all powerful does not hold.

One simply cannot hold these two notions together logically and you deal with only half of the equation.

---

Coke explained it with the vaccination analogy. To this point, you've ignored his response. You owe the response before anyone owes you anything.

---

Nope I responded to coke Bear

---

In this thread you didn't . Here is his analogy again so you can't miss it unless you choose to.

Coke said, " I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So address it or dodge. Your choice.

---

That you don't read my responses is your problem, not mine.

---

Coke's analogy
TS
TS
TS
DC
Doc
Tarp
Tarp
Tarp
Your to DC
Me asking you to address Coke's analogy
DC
You saying you've already responded
Me reposting Coke's analogy
DC
Tarp
You claiming you responded

So now is your chance buddy. You either responded on a different thread and don't want to point it out, responded to coke privately or, you have responded but want others to think you did.

The balls in your court

---

I appreciate your hard work but my basic question was "What is the analogy? Re-post it here

---

"What is the analogy?" You said you answered it. You said you'd already responded to Coke.

Just quit lying already. Address the analogy

Here it is, AGAIN
Coke said, "I imagine that you love your children. You would never let anyone hurt them. You would probably attack someone that tried to hurt them. Must dads would protect their children with their lives. Imagine a man trying to inflicting pain onto to them.

I would guess that you had your children immunized when they were infants. You love them with all your heart and more. But you let a doctor or nurse jab them with a sharp needle filled with a potential pathogen. They were doing nothing wrong and the next thing they knew was a sharp pain and intense crying.

But you knew it was for their own good. They would be better off in the log run with some suffering.

God loves us more than we can know, but he allows us to suffer because He knows that it will be better for us in the long run."

So, address the analogy.

---

If God is all loving and all powerful then there would be no pathogen. Why would God whose fullness is good and loving allow a pathogen into our lives when God had the power to not create the pathogen..
If you were God and had the power to do so, would simply not allow the pathogen in the first place.
It has to do with the nature of God. What is your definition of God? Both all powerful and all loving and yet evil exists at God's hand

---

You still haven't answered my question: what level of suffering would you allow God to permit and still accept that he was both loving and powerful? This is not a trick question, but you continue to ignore it.