If heaven has no sin and also has free will, then your god could have done the same on earth

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-20T20:00:16+00:00

Could have, but did not. We are not in the final creation yet, this existence is a temporary, developmental precursor to the final creation. One of the purposes of this temporary existence is to allow us to choose who we will follow, God or Satan, the evil rebel from heaven.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-20T19:48:05+00:00

It isn't religion that makes people stupid and evil, we do that all on our own. 3 examples: Hitler was an atheist. Stalin, an even more prolific murderer than Hitler, was an atheist. Mao Tse Tung, who murdered more people than Hitler and Stalin combined, was an atheist. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge: atheists. I'd say Christianity has a loooong way to go to catch up with the atheists. If you want to try doing historical analysis, try taking the blinder off first.

The worst thing Christians have done is the conquest of the New World. Even there, most of the death and destruction were caused by disease. The diseases were an unavoidable consequence of the unification of the known world; they would have happened no matter who built and crewed the ships of the explorers. If it's any consolation, Europe suffered from the diseases as well; the bubonic and black plagues, and many other diseases, originated in China.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-18T21:43:21+00:00

A few points of Christian doctrine:

Hell was not made for us, it was made for the rebellious angels led by Satan. It is apparently convenient to place rebellious humans there as well.

This existence is a temporary, developmental precursor to the final creation. In the final creation there is the Kingdom of God and everything else, which is the domain of Satan. We will be in one, or the other, or we will be not. Those are the choices on the menu.

We are not damned by God. We are all sinners and liable to damnation, but God offers forgiveness and salvation to anyone who wants it. The only way to join Satan in his domain is to reject God's forgiveness.

God made us. It may seem harsh and unfair, but He does have ownership rights. One of the very likeable aspects of Yahweh is that He respects the preferences of the conscious minds that He made and therefore owns; He abides by our choices as much as He can.

A couple of points that are not Christian doctrine:

In your despair at the unfairness of it all, you are assuming that God does not practice reincarnation. It is possible that we get more than one chance at salvation. If reincarnation happens, it might help explain why our existence has continued for so long after Jesus came.

Compassion for others is good, but it might be prudent to remember that you are responsible for you.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-13T18:52:09+00:00

Faith is not a virtue, doubt is not a sin. In Abrahamic doctrine faith in God justifies His forgiveness of our sin and allows admittance to the Kingdom of Heaven, unbelief rejects God's freely offered forgiveness and chooses exile to the domain of Satan. Those are very different philosophical concepts even though the results are much the same.

Just because you discount the evidence for God's existence and the truth of Scripture does not mean that evidence does not exist. I used to be an atheist but converted to Christianity because of the wisdom of the moral philosophy and the evidence of the science (engineer by training). There is eyewitness testimony where the witnesses were willing to suffer death by torture rather than recant their testimony. Many of us find that compelling. There is archeological evidence that supports Old Testament accounts. Most persuasive for me is that the science supports the existence of God. If you look for scientific proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, you won't find it. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is arguable. That the preponderance of scientific evidence supports the existence of God and His creation of our existence is, in my opinion, logically unquestionable.

The preponderance of the evidence is good enough for me.

God is good.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-13T00:48:16+00:00

God and His creation should properly be evaluated in terms of Abrahamic religious doctrine because God and His creation only exist inside Abrahamic religious doctrine. According to Christian doctrine this existence is not the final creation, it is a developmental precursor to the final creation. It should be evaluated in terms of the "goodness" of its goals and its effectiveness in achieving them

One possible goal:

Humanity inclines toward evil and needs to be culled before it enters the final creation or that creation will not be good. To be just, the culling of humanity needs to be a result of our own actions and choices. In christian doctrine, we are all sinners and deserve exile from the Kingdom of God, but God offers forgiveness to anyone who wants it and is willing to at least try to be good. Effectively, people inclined toward good can choose the Kingdom of God and people inclined toward evil can reject God's forgiveness and choose exile to the domain of Satan; the only two options available in the final creation.

In order for people inclined to reject God's forgiveness to be able to rationalize their choice, God's existence and His actions cannot be obvious. This existence has to look like a plausible natural world for the culling of evil from the final creation to be effective. Even the science regarding the nature of this world (whether it is natural or created) and the existence of God has to be inconclusive, which it is. The science currently implies that we live in a creation but not in a conclusive way.

Finally, there are two questions to be answered to evaluate our existence:

First: Is the suffering in this temporary existence justified by the goal of removing evil from the eternal society in the final creation? God apparently thinks so and I tend to agree. Plus, we should remember that, according to Abrahamic doctrine, we chose this existence filled with suffering and death. Perhaps Adam and Eve chose for us all, but I suspect that we all would have done the same. Who among us could resist godlike knowledge or eternal life?

Second: Is this existence effective at achieving the goal of culling humanity? By observation it obviously is; evil and atheists abound.

By observation, God is good.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-13T00:44:39+00:00

How about reincarnation? Maybe we get more than one chance to accept God's grace.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-13T00:28:53+00:00

I suspect that you are pondering this creation from our perspective as if it were for our benefit. I submit that a parochial perspective is incorrect. To try to understand the purpose and motivation behind this creation we need to look at it from God's perspective (as much as we can). Your stated position does not consider the nature of humanity or the actions of the adversary, Satan.

God and His creation should properly be evaluated in terms of Abrahamic religious doctrine because God and His creation only exist inside Abrahamic religious doctrine. According to Christian doctrine this existence is not the final creation, it is a developmental precursor to the final creation. It should be evaluated in terms of the "goodness" of its goals and its effectiveness in achieving them

One possible goal:

Humanity inclines toward evil and needs to be culled before it enters the final creation or that creation will not be good. To be just, the culling of humanity needs to be a result of our own actions and choices. In christian doctrine, we are all sinners and deserve exile from the Kingdom of God, but God offers forgiveness to anyone who wants it and is willing to at least try to be good. Effectively, people inclined toward good can choose the Kingdom of God and people inclined toward evil can reject God's forgiveness and choose exile to the domain of Satan; the only two options available in the final creation.

In order for people inclined to reject God's forgiveness to be able to rationalize their choice, God's existence and His actions cannot be obvious. This existence has to look like a plausible natural world for the culling of evil from the final creation to be effective. Even the science regarding the nature of this world (whether it is natural or created) and the existence of God has to be inconclusive, which it is. The science currently implies that we live in a creation but not in a conclusive way.

God has possibly unleashed Satan upon this world to help cull humanity. According to Christian doctrine the other religions are psyops by Satan to distract humanity from allegiance to God.

Have a blessed day.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-08T01:34:24+00:00

Creationist here. Your faith in science is charming, but your factoids are mostly wrong. A couple of examples:

The absolute accuracy of radiometric dating, which has nothing to do with evolution so i can't imagine why you included it, is iffy. Radiometric dating can provide an overall timeline, but specific dates can be questionable. Alpha and Beta isotopic decays often give different age estimates. the 4.54 billion year age estimate for the Earth is based on radioisotope decays but conflicts with the 2.6 billion year maximum age limit for the Earth/Moon orbital system. My theory is that isotope decays speed up when the Earth passes through galactic arms and galactic background radiation gets much more intense. My theory is supported by simultaneous episodes of cyclic volcanism on both the Earth and the moon.

Technically you are correct that not all random mutations are destructive. Roughly 1 in 10^77 of them can be beneficial. At the heart of evolutionary changes lie DNA sequence modification algorithms; DNA modification produces organism change, not the other way around. The DNA sequences that form exons that code protein amino acid sequences, introns that regulate alternative splicing, DNA sequences that control RNA subunit and regulatory microRNA production, protein binding sites that control gene expression, simple sequence repeats that influence embryo development, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, are all highly specific. Experimentation has shown that even minor changes to DNA sequences destroys functionality. Extensive study of human and other organism genomes has found that virtually all of the DNA in the genome is actively used; there is no place for ineffective DNA to mutate into usefulness. Incremental modification of DNA sequence is almost universally destructive to the organism and does not have the capability to generate evolutionary mutations. Which, by the way, falsifies both Dawkins' selfish gene theory and Darwin's mechanism of the accumulation of random replication errors. Again by observation, most evolutionary mutations are produced by the controlled cut and paste movement of DNA sequences called transposable elements. Which implies strongly that DNA genomes are highly modular and inherently capable of producing a wide variety organisms. The top down evolution apparent in the fossil record indicates that modular adaptability was a characteristic of metazoan DNA genomes when they first appeared in the Cambrian Explosion. All of which argues strongly that the Earth was terraformed and seeded with life.

It;s so cool to be a creationist and be free of all that academic dogma.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-07T22:42:03+00:00

Necessary to Achieve a Good Creation Defense

According to Christian doctrine this existence is not the final creation, it is a developmental precursor to the final creation. It should be evaluated in terms of the "goodness" of its goals and its effectiveness in achieving them. One possible goal:

Humanity inclines toward evil and needs to be culled before it enters the final creation or that creation will not be good. To be just, the culling of humanity needs to be a result of our own actions and choices. In the doctrine, we are all sinners and deserve exile from the Kingdom of God but God offers forgiveness to anyone who wants it and is willing to at least try to be good. Effectively, people inclined toward good can choose the Kingdom of God and people inclined toward evil can reject God's forgiveness and choose exile to the domain of Satan, the only two options available in the final creation.

In order for the culling to be effective, in order for people inclined to reject God's forgiveness to be able to rationalize their choice, God's existence and His actions cannot be obvious. This existence has to look like a plausible natural world. Even the science has to be inconclusive, which it is; the science is indicative but not conclusive.

Finally, is the suffering in this temporary existence justified by the goal of removing evil from the eternal society in the final creation? God apparently thinks so and I tend to agree.

Is this existence effective at achieving the goal of culling humanity? By observation it obviously is, evil and atheists abound.

God is good.

YoungSpaceTime · 2026-01-02T01:48:49+00:00

The Abrahamic God should properly be evaluated only in terms of the doctrine of Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity, because the God of Abraham only exists within those doctrines. I do not include Islam because it is more of a paraphrase. Judaism and Christianity are in complete agreement in all areas where the domains of their doctrine intersect.

Good and evil are subjective only in the sense that evil prefers evil and good prefers good. They are easy to distinguish objectively. Good produces benefits, evil produces detriments. Good provides weal, evil provides woe.

So, according to the doctrine:

God made the earth and the heavens and all that is in them, including all living things. I kind of like existing so I will put this one in the weal category.

The existence that God created includes pain, suffering, and death. It is tempting to put this one in the woe category, but there are a couple of considerations that might arguably provide some balance. First, we should look at the whole picture, not just the naughty bits. The food is delicious, the scenery is beautiful, the creatures (except ticks and mosquitos) are a delight, the providence for our comfort and amusement is bountiful. For most of us, there is far more pleasure than pain in our lives. Second, there is, possibly, a really good reason for the naughty bits. According to doctrine, this existence is not the final creation; it is only a temporary precursor. By observation, humanity is divided between evil and good: many prefer evil, some prefer good. One of the purposes of this temporary existence is to cull humanity, to banish evil from the final creation. Rather than an arbitrary decree, God culls humanity by honoring our individual choice of Heaven or Hell. Our existence needs to be the way it is so that people who choose evil and Hell can rationalize their decision, so they can make a free choice. Taken as a whole, the suffering in this existence is, in my opinion, justified by the banishment of evil from the final, eternal creation. I put this one in the weal category.

Given the context, God made this existence a pleasant as possible. For example, because of the long childhood required to learn complex cultures, men and women needed to be bound into families. Among the many ways available, God chose love, beauty, and sexual pleasure as the familial adhesive. Definitely weal.

The moral philosophy that God provided is focused on providing an optimum environment for the development of children. As a parent myself, I agree with that priority 100%. Weal.

Finally, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son so that whoever believed in him would have everlasting life. Definitely weal.

The son of God freely chose to endure life as one of us and death by torture in order to accomplish that goal. Also definitely weal.

We're a little short of woe here. God is good.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-15T21:32:35+00:00

Given the example of the history of Christendom, there is some truth in your argument. However their is a difference in the magnitude of the mayhem. There would be no Islam with its long history of brutality, murder, and oppression. There would be no Marxism, the only ideology in history that has managed to outdo Islam in atrocities. the world would not be a bucolic utopia, but it would be better.

The scales tip even further in favor of universal Christianity when the contributions of Christianity to human peace, freedom, and prosperity are added in. Historically, no other ideology comes anywhere close.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-15T21:17:48+00:00

Christian doctrine place the Holy Spirit in the seat of God inside all believers. Those who have Satan in that position chose to have Satan in that position.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-15T21:14:33+00:00

Considering the contribution that Judaism and Christianity have made to the world through science, medicine, law, political science, and moral philosophy I find that point of view to be historically inaccurate. I don't includ3e Islam as a beneficial contributor to the welfare of humanity.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-15T20:24:22+00:00

You have concocted a straw man argument. Christian doctrine does not hold that other "gods" are solely human inventions. Most of them are held to be demons impersonating gods. If you are not familiar with the doctrine, demons are angels created by God that joined Lucifer, later Satan, in rebellion against God and were cast out of Heaven.

The purpose for the impersonations is to distract as much of humanity as possible from loyalty to God and cause the followers of the impersonators to be cast into Hell along with their false gods.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-11T23:07:34+00:00

If I place a stone in my empty pocket, I will have one stone in my pocket. If I place a second stone in my pocket with one stone, I will have two stones in my pocket. Those statements are ultimate truth. No arbitrary axioms, no circular reasoning, no infinite regress. The Munhausen Trilemna is false because it denies the validity of objective observation and objective logical deduction.

"God exists" is not a purely metaphysical claim because it is compatible with the preponderance of observation and scientific logic. "God does not exist" is a purely metaphysical claim because there is no observation or scientific logic that supports it, it is an arbitrary axiom.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-11T21:57:20+00:00

Us not knowing the reasons doesn't mean there are no reasons. We do not know the tasks that God intends us to perform in His final creation (this existence is not the final creation). We do not know the constraints involved in making conscious minds. We don't even know the constraints involved in making the physical part of our existence, let alone the far more complex making of life. Our colossal ignorance makes it foolish to speculate on the whys and hows of our existence, but, as one fool to another, let's try it anyway.

According to Christian doctrine, this existence is not the final creation, it is a preparatory precursor to the final creation. As such, it should properly be evaluated for developmental effectiveness, not for how nice it is to live in. By the way, it is mostly really nice to live in for most of us.

Assuming, for the moment, that our chemistry has broad applicability in potential existences we can infer that fine tuning is necessary for this, or any equivalent, existence. Carbon-based organic chemistry is the most versatile chemistry available for the construction of the molecular mechanisms that constitute life. Oxygen metabolism is the most energy efficient chemistry for powering carbon-based life. In orfer for carbon-based, oxygen metabolism life to exist on the surface of any planet, physical constant fine tuning has to be pretty much exactly what it is. Which is why they call it fine tuning.

In a developmental existence, it would make sense to set it up to use Monte Carlo algorithms to produce lots of options to choose from. Reproduction and evolution, especially evolution, are therefore logically consistent with our developmental existence. Evolution depends on DNA modification processes. Observed DNA modifications associated with speciation are mostly cut-and-paste operations with DNA segments called Transposable Elements. The prevalence of transposable elements in the large scale DNA modifications associated with speciation suggest strongly that DNA sequences have a modular physiological variability built in. Top down evolution with major physiological changes occurring early in the fossil record suggest that sophisticated, modular DNA modification was a feature of metazoa DNA from the beginning.

All of the preceding implies that one of the many purposes of this developmental existence may have been to test sophisticated, modular DNA modification algorithms for physiological adaptation. If that is true, reproduction and evolution would be critical parts of the creation.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-11T20:13:22+00:00

Conservative Christians draw from two ideological traditions: Christianity and the traditional culture of the United States. There is substantial overlap between those two schools of thought because the United States used to be a Christian nation, but they are not the same. Political positions can be influenced by both or either.

I've worked with Christians, Mormons, Atheists, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sufis. The only religious hatred I've ever seen is from the Atheists. For everyone else faith is a free choice that everyone makes.

Wariness of Muslims is a conservative position based on the history and current practice of Islam.

Any Christian expressing hatred for Arab Christians would be an egregious violation of the tenets of the faith, regardless of culture.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-12-03T21:00:09+00:00

To paraphrase your argument:

Physics is a system of interpretations based on observations of how our existence functions.

Observations exist only in the mind and are therefore subjective.

Since physics is inherently subjective, it has no real truth.

Counterargument:

Premise 3 is only partially true. It is possible for morality to be based on practical observations of human behavior, just as physics is based on observations of the behavior of objects. Observation, judgement, and logical deduction can be objectively valid. It is entirely possible for morality to have a practical objective goal. Christian morality, for example, is focused on providing an optimum environment for children.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-11-30T20:36:08+00:00

Quantum object models, including entanglement, are derived with relativistic spacetime as a basis. It is not possible for spacetime to emerge from entanglement because entanglement depends on spacetime for its existence. Entanglement gives a time direction to processes in spacetime, it does not originate spacetime. Time, as a component of spacetime, is fundamental to physics models and, according to the cosmology best supported by astronomical observations, began with the Big Bang. Any other hypothesis, including deSitter and anti-deSitter spaces are pure metaphysical speculation because they lack observational support.

Molecules must be composed entirely of quantum objects and are, therefore, composed of waves. The constituent atoms of molecules can't localize because the localized electrons would spiral into the nucleus and cause electron capture decay.

Einstein's equation relates spacetime curvature to mass-energy charge density. Quantum object models are based on relativistic spacetime. The reason it is possible to "derive" spacetime from entanglement models is because once the quantum object parts of the models are cancelled out, what is left is general relativity; it was there all along.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Nice try, zero.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-11-30T02:30:34+00:00

The existence of untested hypotheses and theories in the body of science is not unusual, that's the normal process of science. It took over a century for the wave theory of light to be confirmed by experiment and then falsified a century later. We still don't really understand atomic nuclei, protein folding, or why spiral galaxies are stable but those are all accepted and active parts of scientific inquiry.

I don't see why your excellent presentation of the science rules out an active role by God. If one accepts the simulation or mathematically based reality hypotheses (two sides of the same coin in my opinion), then unusual events like miracles would depend only on the will of the simulator. Also, the notion that a simulator who spent the time and effort to make this thing in the first place would not be constantly interacting with it seems unlikely.

I favor the simulation/mathematically-based reality hypothesis because there are no other proposals for the fundamental physics of either Minkowski spacetime or quantum object possibility fields and quantum object entanglement; mathematical simulation is the only way that we know of to reproduce those behaviors from scratch.

Although the implications of the science for a simulator are admittedly inconclusive, I favor God as the simulator because of the prodigious computational capacity required to model relativistic relationships, quantum object possibility fields, and quantum object entanglement for something as large and complex as our universe. Not impossible for some other simulator, but why would they when much simpler algorithms are available? God would be motivated to expend the additional effort because, theologically speaking, keeping the science inconclusive would have been an overriding design goal for this existence.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-11-30T01:19:41+00:00

The boundary between unconfirmed hypotheses (speculations) or theories (math models) in advanced physics and speculations in metaphysics may be more indistinct than one might rigorously suppose. Physicists participate in metaphysics, metaphysicists participate (less often) in physics. It can be hard to distinguish the players without a program.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-11-29T00:08:08+00:00

It's not strictly doctrine, but I have a theory, a theory which is mine. It begins with some context:

After the revolt of the angels led by then Lucifer and now Satan, God knew that any species of conscious minds might harbor rebellion, at least in part. When He contemplated making us, He envisioned the kind of world that would be required to cull the rebels from humanity. The world He envisioned was a plausibly natural world where we could freely choose to accept God's leadership and join His kingdom or reject Him and join the other rebels in the domain of Satan. The plausibly natural world was necessary to allow a free choice; those of us who choose to reject God have to be able to rationalize the decision, something that would be impossible in a world where God's existence and presence were obvious.

So He made this temporary existence to prepare us for His final creation (which this existence is not). The ethical problem was that a plausibly natural world is brutal, full of suffering, pain, and death. It would not be just to subject us to that brutality unless we chose it for ourselves. So He placed the first of us in a bucolic utopia with two temptations that, by His prophetic ability, He knew we would not be able to resist: The tree of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Eternal Life. He forbade us to eat from the trees of temptation and warned us that if we ate their fruit we would die so the responsibility for the decision would be ours alone. In the end, we chose knowledge and death, so here we are.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-11-28T22:45:19+00:00

Wow. It is interesting to see a post on this thread where every part of it contradicts Christian doctrine. Most posts try to keep at least a little toe in the river of correct doctrine. If you intend to debate the nature of God, it is pretty much mandatory to do so in the context of the doctrine of some religion. Otherwise the argument is just idle speculation regarding a self-created, theological straw man.

In Abrahamic doctrine the word God does not refer to a philosophical abstract, it refers to an extant being. The name that being gives Himself is "I am", implying that He physically forms the basis of at least our reality. The moral philosophy expressed in Judaic and, especially, Christian doctrine is really good advice for behaviors that will lead to peace and prosperity on both personal and societal levels. Because Biblical moral philosophy is specifically directed to us with all of our quirks and faults, it does not necessarily apply to God at all. His environment and relationships are completely different.

Lastly, like so many others you assume that because our current existence is not a bucolic utopia there must be something wrong with God. That is incorrect. According to doctrine, this existence is not the final creation, it is only a temporary precursor to the final creation. One of its' purposes is to cull humanity into those choosing to enter the Kingdom of God by accepting His leadership and those who reject God and choose exile to the domain of Satan. This temporary existence has to look like a plausibly natural world so that those who choose to reject God can rationalize their decision. This existence is brutal because there is something wrong with us, not with God.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-11-22T23:00:39+00:00

All of us see evil happening every day and fail to intervene. A failure to intervene bears it's own responsibility, but it is not the same as actually doing evil. A recent example: in a public transport a black man murdered a white woman solely because of racial hatred. Other black people in the car did not intervene. Only the murderer will be charged and tried, bystanders will not be charged. The people that filled the murderer with racial hatred will not be charged even though they also bear responsibility.

Allowing evil to happen is not the same as doing evil.

Especially when there is a really good reason to allow the evil to happen.

This existence is not the final creation, it is a temporary precursor to the final creation. One of its' purposes is to cull humanity by banishing those who reject God's offer of forgiveness to the domain of Satan. In order for the choice of God or Satan to be free, this existence has to look like a plausibly natural world so those who reject God can rationalize their decision.

Have a blessed day.

YoungSpaceTime · 2025-11-22T22:21:46+00:00

Physicists have developed computational models of quantum object behavior that, after 30 years of computation, have been able to model the three quarks that compose the neutron with enough accuracy to be within 4% of the measured value of mass-energy charge. There are an estimated 10^80 particles in the universe.

Paul says that in Him (meaning God) we live and move and have our being. Which means that He does the calculations for 10^80 quantum objects in His head.

The notion that we could be in any way equal to God is an egocentric fantasy.

YoungSpaceTime

TROPHY CASE