A question to theists . . . . . . .

[SlowwHand]

"Time is a convenience contrived by man, and nothing else. It's only important at all on Earth."



"An interesting piece of bull****, I’d like to hear more."


Whaleboy, are you familiar with the creationist viewpoint of eternity? What is time then? Exactly what I said.

[Terra Nullius]

Has anybody else noticed that beingofone is beginning to talk like a Vorlon?

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, are you familiar with the creationist viewpoint of eternity? What is time then? Exactly what I said.

Well you're assuming creationism in your statement. In all reasonable cosmological models, the "time" element of spacetime began when spacetime began, i.e., time = 0. This is thought of as the big bang.

[Blaupanzer]

Thoughts on the subject:

1- Creation is not an act of desire, per se. It is an an act of will augmented by the power to create. One can create through curiousity.

2- The all-seeing and all-knowing aspects of God as presented by the various religions do not have to refer to knowing the future or to knowing all outcomes. Predestination is not built into all religions. Therefore all outcomes do not have to be known for certain at the start.

3- An explanation for what seems to be unknowable appears to be a drive of our brain structure. Hence, the creation of a "God" or "gods" to explain what can only otherwise be unknown. Cosmology attempts to explain the seeming expansion of the universe by postulating a beginning of the process called the "Big Bang." Sounds to me like another act of faith, this time either ignoring the cause or just leaving out its personification.

4- The presentation of the "Problem of Evil" breaks down once the arguers realize realize they have transferred their own responsibility for outcomes to this mysterious "God." "An all-good creature would not create evil," makes God responsible for the acts of men. Of course, it isn't that easy. Side note, the Old Testament does not claim that God is "good," only that he is "just."

5- A being so powerful as to create the universe and to live forever probably has no sex. Male and female forms are a product of sexual reproduction. Since the monotheists claim there to be "one God," it's really doubtful that God is either a "he" or a "she." The terms would have no meaning in the context of the God itself.

[Whaleboy]

1- Creation is not an act of desire, per se. It is an an act of will augmented by the power to create. One can create through curiousity.

Hmm I'm not entirely happy with that, since supposedly God must have had some conception of what he was about to create before he did so, which implies some motivation to "make it real".

The all-seeing and all-knowing aspects of God as presented by the various religions do not have to refer to knowing the future or to knowing all outcomes. Predestination is not built into all religions. Therefore all outcomes do not have to be known for certain at the start.

I think predestination is a necessary consequence of God being absolute and all knowing. If he knows the location and position of every particle in the universe, according to classical physics he'd be able to know every event past, present or future. Of course, uncertainty principle blows that out of the order, but that would mean that God is subject to the same randomness that we mortals are, which by most definitions would refute the idea that he is absolute.

An explanation for what seems to be unknowable appears to be a drive of our brain structure. Hence, the creation of a "God" or "gods" to explain what can only otherwise be unknown. Cosmology attempts to explain the seeming expansion of the universe by postulating a beginning of the process called the "Big Bang." Sounds to me like another act of faith, this time either ignoring the cause or just leaving out its personification.

Not really. The big bang at its most essential consists of a singularity where the laws of physics breaks down, a point which we cannot possibly hope to know. It's rather like saying "here be dragons" which is the scientifically correct thing to do when no evidence exists. The "big bang" in terms of how it is popularly perceived is merely an extrapolation of the motion of galaxies and the horizon problem.

That is not to say that there is no evidence for the big bang; of course there is, but no replicable experiment can currently be performed, which is why the field is strictly cosmology (which I like to think of as the boundary between metaphysics and physics).

I think a cause per se is always going to be a contingent proposition where the universe is concerned; in other words before time = 0, to speak of a cause is irrelevant. You're conjouring up fairies if you're putting God there.

The presentation of the "Problem of Evil" breaks down once the arguers realize realize they have transferred their own responsibility for outcomes to this mysterious "God."

Well that's pretty much the issue of free will. The argument, as far as god is concerned, is just an ad absurdum that doesn't prove that God does not exist. Rather, it is a logical device to show that an absolute God and free-will are incompatible. If you accept free-will, then you must reject god.

Of course, it isn't that easy.

Why not?

Side note, the Old Testament does not claim that God is "good," only that he is "just."

Is there any such thing as just evil? I think most people would read "just" and think "do no harm and have no harm inflicted on you in return". I think if you accept that God is just, then you must surely also believe that God is good.

A being so powerful as to create the universe and to live forever probably has no sex. Male and female forms are a product of sexual reproduction. Since the monotheists claim there to be "one God," it's really doubtful that God is either a "he" or a "she." The terms would have no meaning in the context of the God itself.

Agreed, except that to early civilisations, when looking for a designer for all this stuff they can't explain, they look inwards and see that it is the men who design the tools, light the fires, build the houses, and so the personification of their primitive cosmology must also have been male. Of course, that ignores polytheistic religions, but then, female gods for female attributes... agriculture, love, etc etc.

[beingofone]

SlowwHand:

That's a good story.

Thanks.



Whaleboy:

OzzyKP: "the primary subjective motive of creation must be the Creator's love of His own intrinsic goodness"

Whaleboy: That makes no sense.

Not so quick; If there is only Ultimate Reality then there is nothing other than what could be.

As an example, your own experience: The primary reason for you posting is not the hope of external validation but internal cohesion and approval and satisfaction.

You do not survive in the hopes of becoming me someday, follow? You seek satisfaction with what you are not what you cannot possibly be.

BO1: There is no possible world that would be perfect according to this set of questionings. There might be better and better worlds ad infinitum? It is like saying the world is to crowded for perfect cities.

Whaleboy: Remember that just because something is hotter than something else, that does not imply that there exist something which is hottest.

If we arive at the 'hottest' we would be void of all comparisons, yes?

BO1: The ironic thing is, though, that if we live in a fundamentally unjust universe, we should welcome disasters that claim lives. They are freeing us from a basically awful existence; death is the salve on the wound of life if life is fundamentally a wound, and not a blessing.


Whaleboy: That’s rather like saying that we should now welcome Nazism because it enabled us to explore space, enjoy microwave cookery, and play with computers. If you believe in “good” and “evil” (which, for the record, I don’t), then you must also accept that evil acts can beget good consequences and vice versa.

No; you misunderstand. I am saying if we live in existence that is inherently evil we should welcome death.

We cannot escape our experience, that is to attempt the futile and results in delusion. We can come to understanding as all the great sages of mankind have taught.

Before we come to understanding we must first have 'faith' that such is possible. When understanding is experienced, the realization is that we create definitions of good/evil, suffering/bliss, superior/inferior, and victim/predator.

All there can possibly be is experience and this could be termed God. If we do not wish do do away with ourselves best find out what and why we are here.

Nature abhores a vacuum and it seeks the path of least resistance and therefore; understanding would satisfy all desire of the unknown through surrender to what must be.

The conclusion there must be that the two cancel each other out, which contradicts the belief in absolute good and evil, unless you examine each moral act as it happens, i.e., Nazism as a moral act, as opposed to its social and historical context. This is why the notion of moral philosophy is diametrically opposed to relativism, but for a Christian, surely evil acts are evil acts full stop no?

You asked me a question about Christianity so I will answer with some scripture, hope you do not mind.

Exodus 32:

9. And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
10. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
11. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
12. Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
13. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Isaiah 42:

9. Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

1) God learns, expands, and transcends his previous methods and awareness. That is the very essence of the infinite.

Think about it; if the infinite cannot become what it was not, it is not eternal nor without boundaries.

Isaiah 45:

7. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

John 1:

5. And the light shineth(continually, eternally) into darkness; and the darkness comprehended ( overtake, seize, possess, obtain, perceive,) it not.

2) God is not shirking the creation of all that is. Darkness/evil is the point of expansion and transcendance - God becoming or unfolding.

BO1: If you include all time in all possible worlds the Totality has transcended this time and these worlds as you said above by including time - logical necessity.

Whaleboy: But then how could anything whose property is Totality possibly communicate with us?

By not separating yourself from it. Totality(ie: God) is not a concept nor something 'out there' - he is the essence of the state of being.

You cannot find God somewhere as the entire time you search you are finding what God is not where he is.

BO1: Its(Totality) time is eternal and therefore; expands time like a bubble that pops.

*POP* - goes time and all of its component parts. Logical necessity if time is included and contained by the Totaliy.


Whaleboy: I want what you’re smoking I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say here, as you’ve written it, it doesn’t make much sense.

LOL

If the eternal is infinite it is not bound by time or space. If you can go the speed of light you would have expanded time to the point where it ceases to have position/velocity.

*POP* the bubble Whaleboy.

BO1: That is how I just proved that God was beyond you limiting it to be only what it can internally be - I used logic.


Whaleboy: Not really, to be fair you cheated a little bit by saying, effectively, that “if God exists, he must be absolute/total et al, and thus not bound by your non-absolute rules of logic”.

Pay attention

Example:
A billiard ball table - when the 'break' is made the balls bounce off the rails. Each break is unique and never to be repeated. The balls are all confined to the limits of the rails. If there is only 1 'break' the balls are confined by eternal chaos.

If there are no rails, the balls continue in the set pattern predetermined by the initial 'break' of the rack. Logic exists and therefore; pattern/design with will/intent.

Got it?

If Aneesham is questioning the existence of God, then your response begs the question. If not, then Aneesham is questioning the incompatibilities of your theory to the observable world around us, assuming that God created it.

God is the table, billiard balls, stick, and player of the game. He is not playing chess with evil, he is playing a very advanced game of solitare.

BO1: God transcends existence.


Whaleboy: IOW, God is permitted not to exist… effectively God is the invisible friend in a beholders mind. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, since it presents an interesting possibility… if trying to find God by looking up is futile, perhaps it is better to look in?

Indeed; no matter how long or hard you 'look' - you will never find a Whaleboy inside yourself. The best you can do is find memory which presents itself as a linear timeline.

Neat trick God played on himself

Schrödinger's Cat is dead

LOL


Terra Nullius:

Has anybody else noticed that beingofone is beginning to talk like a Vorlon?

People of the earth, we are among you, join us or die.

[beingofone]

aneeshm,
This one is for you.

An accomplished Yogi.

[beingofone]

Redneck Americans attempting to aquire the same:

[Straybow]

Ah, too funny beingofone!

But the bottles on the table are Photoshopped, the pic would've worked fine without them.

God does not possess the quality of desire , for desire arises only when there is limited potential to achieve the object of desire , whereas there is no object to desire in the beginning ( when only god exists ) , and the potential of God is unlimited

The idea that desire is either evil or a shortcoming is erroneous. It is my observation that Oriental phil is chock full of such assertions.

[lord of the mark]

when y'all say creation, are you talking Bera, or Atziluth?

[Elok]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
when y'all say creation, are you talking Bera, or Atziluth?

If you don't stop popping out Hebrew words and expecting us to know WTF you're referencing, we're going to be talking Time Cube, the official anti-semite's theory of everything, just to spite you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok


If you don't stop popping out Hebrew words and expecting us to know WTF you're referencing, we're going to be talking Time Cube, the official anti-semite's theory of everything, just to spite you.

I really dont think this is the sort of topic that can benefit from a poly discussion. However Im currently reading Gershom Scholem on "The Kabbalah and its Symbolism" (Scholem himself is no mystic, but the greatest scholarly researcher into the history of Jewish mysticism) so I thought id josh all of you.

[Straybow]

IIUC, "bera" is putting created matter into a form. Living things reproduce "after their kind (bera)."

[Flip McWho]

from the book "Indian Philosophy" , regarding the alleged atheism of the Samkhya system of Hindu thought:

All actions are motived by self-interest or benevolence

Therefore God created us out of benevolence.

[Flip McWho]

Re: Argument from Evil.

I've always found that one rather weak. Evil exists only for humans (sin = evil) and humans can sin because of free will.

'Evil' in the world at large is just humanity viewing things through our glasses.