What is God's Purpose?

[PsychoticEpisode]

The forum is littered with threads regarding our purpose in life but what about God? Shouldn't God have a purpose also? I'm not talking about creating, immaculate conceptions or miracles. I mean if we have a purpose then God must have one also. Why is there a god and for what purpose?

For all theists.... when you sin, do you feel God watching you? If so or if you know he is going to be watching then why do it? I can only think that you believe God will forgive you. Why worry about sin then? Are some sins unforgiveable even by God's standards? If sin is forgiven then why are some sinners sent to Hell for punishment? Is God only here to forgive us? Is that what He does for a living? Why?

God knows, God forgives and then He punishes you once your dead. I can only conclude that when God forgives, one is alive, but once dead you're in big trouble. It seems that actually meeting God once you're dead is not a good thing. Your judged, and either you praise god for all eternity or you fry. You basically become a nobody that lives forever. Is that God's purpose? To judge & punish us for whatever reason? Again I ask why?

[Betrayer0fHope]

God is apparently above everything. If we could apply things for humans to God theists would've been screwed by the who created God argument.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

The short answer is that God is a first cause. His purpose is simply to be.

God is omniscient, thus he know not only the sin we are commiting, but also all the ones we are going to commit. God expects believers to try to do his will. To be a believer you must believe in Him. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have their own flavorings for this, but at it's most basic, believe or you will suffer in the afterlife. As far as christianity goes, for sin to be forgiven, one must believe that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice. This means that the sins don't go away, but that they are whitewashed. Some sinners choose to deny God and Jesus Christ, which is the only "unforgivable" sin. To die having denied him throughout one's life. This is what is meant by rejecting the Holy Spirit.

I'm not too familiar with Judaism or Islam.

I would ask, why does God need a purpose?

[PsychoticEpisode]

God is apparently above everything. If we could apply things for humans to God theists would've been screwed by the who created God argument.

So God has no purpose? Being omni-everything isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Doing God stuff or things humans can't do....is that His main purpose for being around?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Some sinners choose to deny God and Jesus Christ, which is the only "unforgivable" sin. To die having denied him throughout one's life. This is what is meant by rejecting the Holy Spirit.

I'm in trouble for divine denial but a theistic mass murderer gets forgiven? Yowza!!!

I would ask, why does God need a purpose?

Why do we? You wouldn't know for instance if God was working for someone else?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Are we playing the questions game? Do humans need a purpose? Why does the mass murderer's forgiveness, while your denial's lack of forgiveness surprise you? Haven't you heard about how it takes one sin of any kind to be unable to enter into the presence of the Lord? Have you known that it is only through Jesus Christ that we can approach the Father?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Perhaps it would be simpler to consider God as being that which controls all the dimensions, more a force of nature than anything we can really understand. Believe me, the first time God has a question and answer session I'm going to ask why he made humans at all.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Believe me, the first time God has a question and answer session I'm going to ask why he made humans at all.

You've managed to give Him a legitimate purpose.

[chris4355]

god is the more comfortable answer.

anything we do not know, we say god knows. it makes us feel better about being not smart enough to understand.

just like a dog will never understand how a car engine works, I suppose it could be logical for us to accept that we may never know how the universe works in its entirety.

but some people are too stubborn and egotistical to accept the fact that their understanding of the world may be forever challenged, so they mutually agree that god is the answer for all these mysteries.

in the end, they feel good about themselves, the general population gets a little dumber, and everyone is happy.

(but nothing is solved!)

[Mr. Hamtastic]

god is the more comfortable answer.

anything we do not know, we say god knows. it makes us feel better about being not smart enough to understand.

just like a dog will never understand how a car engine works, I suppose it could be logical for us to accept that we may never know how the universe works in its entirety.

but some people are too stubborn and egotistical to accept the fact that their understanding of the world may be forever challenged, so they mutually agree that god is the answer for all these mysteries.

in the end, they feel good about themselves, the general population gets a little dumber, and everyone is happy.

(but nothing is solved!)

Wow. You know, if this were the 11th or 12th century, I'd be inclined to agree. It's not. There are scientists that are christians hard at work trying to figure out how God has put things together. Christians, in general, recognize that Science answers the How questions, while God answers the Why questions. They are simply different pieces of a bigger puzzle.

To use your example, a dog will never know how an engine works. Show me an auto mechanic or engineer that can tell me Why an engine works. Perhaps a physicist should be involved. I don't care anything about how it works. Tell me why. You will not be able to answer why the engine works. You will attempt to tell me that I am asking How it works. You will then tell me that I refuse to listen to science. Now that we know how this is going to go, assuming that you have attempted to tell me how an engine works and expected me to accept this as why it works. Science. cannot. answer. why. questions. For another fun thing to do try this experiment. Why can you see? There are blind people all over getting along just fine, so no argument that it is to better survive. Why can YOU see? Not how, with your anatomy of the eye and whatnot. Why?:p

[gurglingmonkey]

Why can I see? Because seeing is evolutionarily advantageous, and it was selected for in an accidental process. Is that not answering the question either?

[chris4355]

Wow. You know, if this were the 11th or 12th century, I'd be inclined to agree.
It's not.

The religious mentality is still the same. Christians and other religious people still refute new scientific discoveries. At first is was the earth being round, now its evolution.

There are scientists that are Christians hard at work trying to figure out how God has put things together.

ya, intelligent design was definitely their best work!

Christians, in general, recognize that Science answers the How questions, while God answers the Why questions. They are simply different pieces of a bigger puzzle.

God does not answer any why questions, all it does is replace the word why with "god".

To use your example, a dog will never know how an engine works. Show me an auto mechanic or engineer that can tell me Why an engine works. Perhaps a physicist should be involved.

Sure a physicist should be involved, and the physicist could teach the engineer how it works. But he could not teach a dog, the dogs intelligence is just too limited - what makes you think we do not have a limit to our understanding of things?

Science. cannot. answer. why. questions. For another fun thing to do try this experiment. Why can you see? There are blind people all over getting along just fine, so no argument that it is to better survive. Why can YOU see? Not how, with your anatomy of the eye and whatnot. Why?

read post above


Religion does not ask you to question, it asks you to stop thinking and just accept things for the way they are.

How AND why questions are sciences work, not religion.

[gurglingmonkey]

I imagine what you're really saying is that only God can answer the question of, "What is the Ultimate Purpose of x?"

So maybe the Ultimate Purpose of life, according to "God", is to live in accordance with "God"'s rules so that in the afterlife, one may become one with God. Of course, pesky people can ask, "What is the Ultimate Purpose of becoming one-with-God?"

And I imagine the answer to that comes down to, "because being one with God is the greatest thing there is." However, I would say that life itself(living, existence) is the greatest thing there is(particularly in virtue of being the only thing there is).

This is an instance of disagreement in values (one valuing life itself, the other valuing union with "God"). This disagreement in values leads to a disagreement in Ultimate Purpose, because Ultimate Purposes are built on values. Science is supposed to be a purely descriptive practice, objective, without bias, and as such without values.

Science has no values, so it cannot tell us the Ultimate Purpose of our lives because it cannot tell us what to value (how to argue about what we should value seems very tricky to me). Nevertheless I feel that science is the best way of arriving at the truth, and so I have come to the conclusion that there is no Ultimate Purpose in life, instead there are the purposes that we give to our lives as evaluating beings. I say that the Ultimate Purpose of life is to live because this seems like the best way to present the fact that life can be given a broad range of purposes.

[chris4355]

I imagine what you're really saying is that only God can answer the question of, "What is the Ultimate Purpose of x?"

Well, you tell me, what is an answer? An answer is some kind of reasoning that leaves one who questions satisfied. So yes, to some, god is a reasonable answer. Because it answers their question.

So maybe the Ultimate Purpose of life, according to "God", is to live in accordance with "God"'s rules so that in the afterlife, one may become one with God. Of course, pesky people can ask, "What is the Ultimate Purpose of becoming one-with-God?"

Well now you are kinda branching off into religion, which I guess is what comes after you start believing in god.

And I imagine the answer to that comes down to, "because being one with God is the greatest thing there is." However, I would say that life itself(living, existence) is the greatest thing there is(particularly in virtue of being the only thing there is).

I second that!

This is an instance of disagreement in values (one valuing life itself, the other valuing union with "God"). This disagreement in values leads to a disagreement in Ultimate Purpose, because Ultimate Purposes are built on values. Science is supposed to be a purely descriptive practice, objective, without bias, and as such without values.

Science has no values, so it cannot tell us the Ultimate Purpose of our lives because it cannot tell us what to value (how to argue about what we should value seems very tricky to me). Nevertheless I feel that science is the best way of arriving at the truth, and so I have come to the conclusion that there is no Ultimate Purpose in life, instead there are the purposes that we give to our lives as evaluating beings. I say that the Ultimate Purpose of life is to live because this seems like the best way to present the fact that life can be given a broad range of purposes.

I don't think so. We know our values, and we can scientifically prove them. Value of our lives, love, morals are all necessary things for us to be happy and live as a society. You can understand those things philosophically, scientifically and religiously as well.

A purpose in life can be whatever you want it to be. I think we all ultimately seek happiness. The only thing thats different is how we attain it.

I know what you mean, why should everyone have to have the same purpose in life anyways? thats so boring!

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Gurglingmonkey-You and I, I think, are similarly thinking creatures.

chris4355-I wasn't coming here to try to force you to believe in my God. That's not my batch of cookies. However, you attacked my beliefs, in whole, and thus, me directly. I would like you to do one thing. Give me a scientific value. I'm sure there must be many scientifically proven scientific values, given your previous statement. Perhaps you were speaking of integers assigned to variables? What is the value of evolution? Scientifically speaking. Please give proof.

[(Q)]

However, you attacked my beliefs, in whole, and thus, me directly.

Then, that is your own personal problem, not his. Your beliefs are not you, they are merely a set of ideologies and doctrines that you've been indoctrinated to follow. They aren't even your own ideas, but someones else.

Therefore, you need to separate yourself from someone else ideals and not take it personally.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Q-You are always so cute with that. I love it. Really.

Let us assume that I have been indoctrinated into my beliefs. How does one seperate a bit of what they base their decisions in life on from themselves? I include my decision making process as a part of who I am, as much as I do my appendages. If someone tells me that I am horribly ugly, should I not be offended, since I was born with my face, and had no say about it?

[SnakeLord]

Some sinners choose to deny God and Jesus Christ, which is the only "unforgivable" sin.

Incorrect.

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32).

That is the only unforgivable sin - calling the holy spirit names. It's a sensitive bit of wind you know.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Snakelord-You are quite the literalist, thus I will ask if you would accept my interpretation of what the verse says, before I post it.

[SnakeLord]

Snakelord-You are quite the literalist

When gods speak, who here would assume they don't really mean exactly what they say?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Did God write Matthew? Or was it a guy named Matthew, trying to remember back awhile? No, wait, you'll call that avoidance.

How about this,Consider chapter 12, verse 34 of Matthew. "Brood of Vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundence of the heart the mouth speaks." This was Jesus speaking. While we are being literal and not considering context or translation or anything. Jesus is talking to snakes. He says they are evil, suggests that they can talk, and that in talking they can speak good things. That it is whatever you have the most of in your heart, cholesterol, oxygenated blood, non oxygenated blood, that is what your mouth talks about. Right?

[SnakeLord]

Did God write Matthew? Or was it a guy named Matthew, trying to remember back awhile? No, wait, you'll call that avoidance.


If we are willing to do this - it must be done with every single part of the bible. That will cause more problems than the theist would like. If it was just some fallible guy called Matthew, you have no case for taking any of it seriously. If he cannot accurately recall the words of this supposed god, (jesus), then you might aswell abandon them all. Everything he apparently said can be dismissed in equal fashion.

How about this,Consider chapter 12, verse 34 of Matthew. "Brood of Vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundence of the heart the mouth speaks." This was Jesus speaking.

No it wasn't, it was the bad memory of Matthew. See the problem now? You can continue to do this until you're left with a big fat nothing - case closed at that point.

While we are being literal and not considering context or translation or anything. Jesus is talking to snakes. He says they are evil, suggests that they can talk, and that in talking they can speak good things.

Incorrect, (although apparently snakes are evil and can talk - hence the distinction). However, I don't see how this applies to the earlier passage. Please, do tell me. Where is the relation with him insulting people and the straightforward, fact of the matter statement that you can blaspheme him and the father and be forgiven, but not the holy spirit. Are you saying that he was lying, that you can't blaspheme the father or son and be forgiven but that you can blaspheme the holy spirit? Please explain yourself.

[Medicine*Woman]

Did God write Matthew? Or was it a guy named Matthew, trying to remember back awhile?

How about this,Consider chapter 12, verse 34 of Matthew. "Brood of Vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundence of the heart the mouth speaks." This was Jesus speaking. While we are being literal and not considering context or translation or anything. Jesus is talking to snakes. He says they are evil, suggests that they can talk, and that in talking they can speak good things. That it is whatever you have the most of in your heart, cholesterol, oxygenated blood, non oxygenated blood, that is what your mouth talks about. Right?
*************
M*W: It's a common belief among biblical scholars that the Book of Matthew was not written by someone named Matthew. That said, it is also unlikely that anyone named Paul wrote the Epistles... or even existed. I don't have my reference books with me, since I am at a refugee camp right now due to Hurricane Ike. Otherwise, I could provide you with citations.

"Matthew" is an Anglicized version of the words "Ra ma theo," which means literally "Ra" (the sun) "Theo" (is god). Also, Matthew was not the first gospel, Mark was written first. It's also likely that Mark stood for "Mars," "Luke" stood for "lucient" (clearly seen), and "John" may have stood for the Constellation of Aquarius which has represented "John the Baptist," and strangely enough, "Mary Magdalene," as they hold a jar that is representative of both sky figures.

I've done a lot of reading on the subject of astro-theology (the study of god in the zodiac). Observing the zodiac (astrology) was the study of the stars. It was the first religion created by ancient humans as a form of entertainment. I like to think of it as the first video game.

If you read Revelation, "John" who is credited with its authorship, you will find all the symbolism of the pregnant woman and the dragon, and the other symbols in the stars, planets and constellations.

In other words, the bible is an ancient astrology calendar. I understand this is too complicated to understand, but if you research it like I have, it would become quite clear.

Please understand that I am not saying that I believe this to be the only one true god or religion. I am not. What I am saying is that astro-theology was the first religion, albeit man-made, as were all other religions that were derived from it.

[gurglingmonkey]

I don't think so. We know our values, and we can scientifically prove them. Value of our lives, love, morals are all necessary things for us to be happy and live as a society. You can understand those things philosophically, scientifically and religiously as well.

I agree that science can tell us what we do, in fact, value. I just don't think science can tell us what is valuable, or in other words, what we should value. I'm not sure that telling someone that they should value x is even coherent. I mean, when I say that we should value our lives and someone asks why? my answer is invariably based on another value, one that they might not share.

Me: You should really value your life, Ralph.
Ralph: Why is that?
Me: Because you can have a lot of fun in your life.
Ralph: Well, I don't care about having fun.
Me: Uh... okay. Well, all the people who love you would be sad if you died.
Ralph: Why should I care about their happiness?
Me: Because people being happy is good.
Ralph: Why should I try to achieve what is good?
Me: BECAUSE IT'S GOOD RALPH! It's good. Good!

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Snakelord-I must say you have an amazing ability at commenting on what I have said without an actual response. I will respond to the 2 responses you made.

1. All books were written by men. Taking your supposition that the Bible, since it was written by men, should be ignored, then we should do the same with the writings of Charles Darwin? Or perhaps the writings of science are above reproach, and we should toss out silliness like Voltaire, Kant, or even the recorded opinions of Socrates? It is a book. It has all the power that the individual assigns it.

2. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit. The work of the Holy Spirit is to give testimony(internal) to Jesus as Savior. Now. If you stop denying the Holy Spirit while you have breath, and have faith in Jesus Christ, then the blasphemy is undone. Not that I think you will accept this as an answer.

[SnakeLord]

1. All books were written by men. Taking your supposition that the Bible, since it was written by men, should be ignored

If you are reading a book that is supposed to be factual but find out that the information within is not factual but indeed fictional then yes, I would advise not taking it seriously. If your entire religion rests on; "well, you know he was just a man and couldn't remember certain details", then you establish no reason with which to take any of it as factual. And, if you are willing, I would be more than happy to go through the entire book and see what you, the theist, dismisses as fiction. You've already done it with Genesis, so that's one book out the way. Shall we continue?

If you are constantly dismissing the text of your own bible, how could you expect me or anyone else to take your religion seriously?

Now. If you stop denying the Holy Spirit while you have breath, and have faith in Jesus Christ, then the blasphemy is undone

Not according to jesus. I am now just wondering to myself whether you are a higher authority on the matter than jesus - woops, sorry, the mistaken matthew. If you blaspheme the holy spirit, aka holy wind, then you are not forgiven - now or ever, so sayeth matthew quoting jesus.. apparently incorrectly.

However, you put a little whine at the end saying you think I wont accept that as an answer. I hereby give you the opportunity to tell me why I should, why you should be regarded as the authority on the matter. Please, take your time.

[Billy T]

An answer to the thread's question, some free advice, and a little "God history":

Our God was shunned by the other gods, like the Quakers do. – No other God would talk to him. (It would take too long to tell why she was shunned, so I will skip that.) Thus, God made man in a universe that was a young God’s mistake and had been abandoned. God’s purpose (in making man) was to have some intellectually interesting people to talk with. God created a place called heaven to hold these discussions, but has not let anyone in yet as God wants to get the best from all generations of humanity. Dead person’s, whose soul might qualify are now in “limbo” – a cold storage place. Others, the vast majority, God just burns up immediately.

God is still working on the selection criteria. Here are the selection rules he* has already established:

(1) No fools who believe whatever they are told by parents or others in authority, but only people capable of independent thought would make interesting conversationalist. (God does not want his own thoughts just repeated back to him.)

(2) Independent thinkers (those who passed rule1) must not just make up any old weird thoughts, but have some logical basis for them.
I.e. hold ideas based on evidence that were at least once confirmed by testing.

(3) (Still under development)

So here is my "free advice":

(1) Whatever you do, have a logical, evidential, basis for it. For god’s sake, if you want to avoid the fire and to be selected for heaven, Do Not Pray to unseen being (or beings) lacking any evidential support.

(2) Do Not say (or even silently believe): “God does not exist.” as that too lacks evidence. Best to be an agnostic about God, if you want to go to heaven;
but Do Not be sure of that, as rule 3 is incomplete still.

-------------------
*God is multi-sexed, but that is too hard to explain and definitely "off thread."
Would others please try to get on thread and answer the question.

[Reiku]

Gods purpose, is to give everything else purpose.

[Billy T]

Gods purpose, is to give everything else purpose.You have not really answered the question -told why God made anything? If he had not made anything, then there would be nothing requiring purpose. Why did God make something needing purpose? If God felt the need to make something, why not some clever purpose-less machines? They could look and act just like you (and me).

[Mr. Hamtastic]

If you are reading a book that is supposed to be factual but find out that the information within is not factual but indeed fictional then yes, I would advise not taking it seriously.

Let's stop here a moment. Do you have any books that contain only facts? If my phone book has my phone number listed incorrectly, should I suppose, then that all the numbers are listed incorrectly? How about an Encyclopedia from the 1950's or so? The facts now are not what they were then in many cases, so should we assume that all encyclopedias from the 1950's are not to be taken seriously? If the book from the 1950's has one fact that agrees with one fact from today, does it make them both true? or are they false? You seem to want to deal with the books of the Bible in this manner.

If your entire religion rests on; "well, you know he was just a man and couldn't remember certain details", then you establish no reason with which to take any of it as factual.

no the religion rests on faith in God. Not in faith in the bible. Try not to get confused.

And, if you are willing, I would be more than happy to go through the entire book and see what you, the theist, dismisses as fiction.

By all means, please go verse by verse, so that we can consider it contextually as well, would you? Start with Genesis 1:1.

You've already done it with Genesis, so that's one book out the way.

Actually I have suggested that Genesis is a series of morality based stories. Don't misunderstand this as dismissal of the entire book. I don't dismiss the moral of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, either. Do you?

Shall we continue? By all means, but as I said previously, let's be thorough and go verse by verse. If you would like to start somewhere besides Genesis, perhaps we could start in Matthew and start by going through the New testament.

If you are constantly dismissing the text of your own bible, how could you expect me or anyone else to take your religion seriously?

I don't expect anyone to take anything seriously. I interpret things differently from some people, and I thought that you were an Atheist on a quest for actual knowledge. Was I mistaken?

Not according to jesus. I am now just wondering to myself whether you are a higher authority on the matter than jesus - woops, sorry, the mistaken matthew.

Not by any means. If you believe Matthew literally, then I support you in your belief. I suspect, however that you do not, and you are merely fishing for christians to show how smart you are to. I love it when Atheists take on the "Holier than thou" approach.

If you blaspheme the holy spirit, aka holy wind, then you are not forgiven - now or ever, so sayeth matthew quoting jesus.. apparently incorrectly.


Main Entry: blas·pheme
Pronunciation: \blas-ˈfēm, ˈblas-ˌ\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): blas·phemed; blas·phem·ing
Etymology: Middle English blasfemen, from Late Latin blasphemare — more at blame
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 : to speak of or address with irreverence

So what word would Jesus have used to say this in Aramaic, perhaps, then? Do you have Matthew's original handy, probably written in either Greek or Early Latin, about 1350+years before this particular word came about?


However, you put a little whine at the end saying you think I wont accept that as an answer. I hereby give you the opportunity to tell me why I should, why you should be regarded as the authority on the matter. Please, take your time.


The only reason I could be considered an authority on the matter is that I am a christian, and have studied the bible, and have come to my own conclusions. I believe that your irreverance towards the Holy Spirit is only damning if you choose to pursue it until you die. If it makes you happy to believe that your irreverence thus far is damning, that Jesus cannot intercede for you in this instance, I will quit this argument, and accede to you. Somehow, though you like to use biblical references, I do not think you have faith in God, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit for that matter. If that is the case, I would suggest that you leave the name calling to those capable of knowing what it is they are calling a name.:)

[Mr. Hamtastic]

BillyT-What parts of your post do you want me to take seriously? I answered the OP, and since then have been discussing things with the esteemed snakelord. We are, loosely, on topic. Oh! You are mistaken by the way. God is not multisexual. God is asexual. God's gender is based purely on patriarchal labels, and now the increasingly matriarchal labels. God would be just as well described as It.

[Billy T]

BillyT-What parts of your post do you want me to take seriously? I answered the OP, and since then have been discussing things with the esteemed snakelord. We are, loosely, on topic. Oh! You are mistaken by the way. God is not multisexual. God is asexual. God's gender is based purely on patriarchal labels, and now the increasingly matriarchal labels. God would be just as well described as It.OK. I admit I was just guessing on the "multi-sexual" part, but the rest of post 27 is the "God's honest truth." ;) Are you telling me that there is no sex in heaven? :eek:

If that is true, I will violate rule (1) and pray for change of heaven's policy (for others as praying will disqualify me from entry into heaven by God's rule 1.)

[Medicine*Woman]

OK. I admit I was just guessing on the "multi-sexual" part, but the rest of post 27 is the "God's honest truth." ;) Are you telling me that there is no sex in heaven? :eek:

If that is true, I will violate rule (1) and pray for change of heaven's policy (for others as praying will disqualify me from entry into heaven by God's rule 1.)
*************
M*W: The myth of god's sexual archetype is androgenous rather than multi-sexual according to what I've read. Now we know that there are many sexual types, but the ancient myth allows for it's god-types to be both male and female (i.e. "let us make god in our image").

[Mr. Hamtastic]

OK. I admit I was just guessing on the "multi-sexual" part, but the rest of post 27 is the "God's honest truth." ;) Are you telling me that there is no sex in heaven? :eek:

If that is true, I will violate rule (1) and pray for change of heaven's policy (for others as praying will disqualify me from entry into heaven by God's rule 1.)

I haven't been there, so I can't say exactly WHAT goes on in heaven.

the rest of post 27 is crunchy and good with milk.:p

[(Q)]

I include my decision making process as a part of who I am, as much as I do my appendages.

And so you should, they are both physical functions of your body.

If someone tells me that I am horribly ugly, should I not be offended, since I was born with my face, and had no say about it?

Nonsense, that's their problem, not yours. Just smile and wave. :wave:

So, what does this have to do with separating a set of ideals from yourself?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

You have suggested that the set of ideals was instilled in me through childhood indoctrination, right? Therefore those ideals are a part of my decision making process. Still with me? My decision making process is as much me as my face. Still following, right? Thus my ideals are as much a part of me as my face. It would be rather difficult to seperate myself from my face, therefore it would be at least equally difficult to seperate myself from my ideals.

[(Q)]

1. All books were written by men. Taking your supposition that the Bible, since it was written by men, should be ignored, then we should do the same with the writings of Charles Darwin?

It has all the power that the individual assigns it.

There's no reason to ignore the bible, it has some interesting fables, some gems of phrases and a life lesson or two.

However, if humans assign the power of the word of a god who is responsible for all creation, assigns our lives in submission and worship, assigns an afterlife of eternal damnation, this would serve only to demonstrate that the bible was indeed conceived, contrived and conscripted by men, and only men.

If you are choosing to assign such power to a mere book written centuries ago, why would anyone take the religion at all seriously? They would only do so if they themselves assigned such power. Millions could do exactly the same thing.

Yet, with all those millions and millions of assignments of power, gods have shown us nothing more than their complete silence and impotence. It is only the assignment of power which you and others give the bible that is of any consequence.

And it is that which can be duly ignored. :)


2. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit. The work of the Holy Spirit is to give testimony(internal) to Jesus as Savior. Now. If you stop denying the Holy Spirit while you have breath, and have faith in Jesus Christ, then the blasphemy is undone. Not that I think you will accept this as an answer.

Impossible to accept. Those are empty words to anyone who hasn't assigned the same power as you to the bible. And your personal assignment of such power ideally precludes the relevancy of your religion and your god.

Sort of like peeing into the wind. ;)

[(Q)]

You have suggested that the set of ideals was instilled in me through childhood indoctrination, right? Therefore those ideals are a part of my decision making process. Still with me? My decision making process is as much me as my face. Still following, right? Thus my ideals are as much a part of me as my face. It would be rather difficult to seperate myself from my face, therefore it would be at least equally difficult to seperate myself from my ideals.

Sorry, but you are still not separating YOUR decision making process from SOMEONE ELSE'S ideals. They were never your ideals, regardless of the fact you accepted them, uncritically.

And they most certainly are not difficult to separate from you, in any number of ways.

You are you and the ideals of your religion are something completely different from you.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

There's no reason to ignore the bible, it has some interesting fables, some gems of phrases and a life lesson or two.

However, if humans assign the power of the word of a god who is responsible for all creation, assigns our lives in submission and worship, assigns an afterlife of eternal damnation, this would serve only to demonstrate that the bible was indeed conceived, contrived and conscripted by men, and only men.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. The bible was written by men? Yep. Were they doing their best to be historically accurate? Yep. Was it written by men who already had faith in God? yep. Should an atheist have anything to do with it? Only when 1. Studying world religion 2. Refuting a rabid, attacking evangelical christian 3. If they are seeking God. Ask yourselves, Q and Snakelord specifically, which of these three categories do you fall into?

If you are choosing to assign such power to a mere book written centuries ago, why would anyone take the religion at all seriously? They would only do so if they themselves assigned such power. Millions could do exactly the same thing.

What? Are you asking why anyone should take the bible, and erego, christianity seriously? If so, see above. If not, be more clear for this simple pig.

Yet, with all those millions and millions of assignments of power, gods have shown us nothing more than their complete silence and impotence. It is only the assignment of power which you and others give the bible that is of any consequence.

I see. So because millions and millions of people have "sought God" and they did not get responses that were readily evidenced to YOU, God is nullified. I'm sorry you feel that way, Q.

And it is that which can be duly ignored. :)

If you must hide yourself away from God, then by all means.

Impossible to accept. Those are empty words to anyone who hasn't assigned the same power as you to the bible. And your personal assignment of such power ideally precludes the relevancy of your religion and your god.

Sort of like peeing into the wind. ;)


I would suggest that perhaps I am merely "throwing my pearls to the swine":eek:

[(Q)]

I would suggest that perhaps I am merely "throwing my pearls to the swine":eek:

Why would you say such a thing? Is that the extent of your argument? Why do you bother, then? :shrug:

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Sorry, but you are still not separating YOUR decision making process from SOMEONE ELSE'S ideals. They were never your ideals, regardless of the fact you accepted them, uncritically.

Sorry, but I claim ownership of my indoctrination to Addition as well. Perhaps I should seperate that from myself as well?

And they most certainly are not difficult to separate from you, in any number of ways.

Through torture? no Threat? no Asking nicely while tickling my feet? Almost, but no. Are you suggesting surgically? Maybe you should join the discussion of which is more similar, an orange and a side of beef or an orange and a live goose. The altering of one's being alive has been visited many times in that thread.

You are you and the ideals of your religion are something completely different from you.


Nope. They're not. Me and your ideals of your beliefs are completely seperate. You are also seperate from my beliefs. My beliefs are seperate from your beliefs. You and I are seperate. I think that about covers us, our beliefs, and what is seperate. Glad I could clear that up for you.:cool:

[PsychoticEpisode]

Seeing that everything is of divine origin then God's purpose can only be to satisfy Himself. Paraphrasing, 'He saw that it was good' kind of hints that God's reason for everything is only designed to stroke His giant ego. I mean, why wouldn't it be good? God's purpose seems to be one of convincing Himself that He is worthy of the title.

Prior to the universe, when God was wherever He might have been, He obviously did some soul searching. Something triggered a divine epiphany of sorts. God could not have been happy with just being God. Thus God could not have thought that His purpose was to just be God, otherwise everything stays staus quo. If God exists, then there should be no doubt that God's actions indicate He believed there was more to Himself than just being God. Therefore God feels He has a purpose. Unfortunately the all knowing benevolence hasn't figured it out either.

[(Q)]

Nope. They're not. Me and your ideals of your beliefs are completely seperate. You are also seperate from my beliefs. My beliefs are seperate from your beliefs. You and I are seperate. I think that about covers us, our beliefs, and what is seperate. Glad I could clear that up for you.:cool:

Then, can we conclude that anything criticized about your religion and your vicious god is a criticism against you?

I'm afraid that's your problem and not ours. :cool:

[PsychoticEpisode]

I'm afraid Hamstertastic exhibits the very thing I proposed in the OP. He speaks as if God is listening in. Personally I can't see any man's words upsetting to an eavesdropping God. So if God is the omnipresent fly on the wall then His reason for doing so is not to condemn me to hell for voicing an honest opinion. Again as I indicated in Post 42, actions such as digesting our conversations suggest that God is in search of His purpose.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Q-Yes.

PsychoticEpisode-Here's a brain-bender for you. It's one I wonder myself. Perhaps God is serving an even higher being. Perhaps he is finite, but so far in excess of our understanding, he may as well be infinite. Perhaps there is an entire social order of much greater, higher beings, that simply take no notice of us. Perhaps God was the being tasked with being caretaker of our particular sentience. Then again, perhaps not. :)

[PsychoticEpisode]

.

PsychoticEpisode-Here's a brain-bender for you. It's one I wonder myself. Perhaps God is serving an even higher being.

You are subliminally impressionable. Were my words in Post #5 suggestive?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

LOL I had forgotten that you had said that, actually. <puts tinfoil cap on head> Now stop sending me your thoughts!:mad:

[lightgigantic]

The forum is littered with threads regarding our purpose in life but what about God? Shouldn't God have a purpose also?
sure

I'm not talking about creating, immaculate conceptions or miracles. I mean if we have a purpose then God must have one also. Why is there a god and for what purpose?
perhaps a word for purpose could be dharma - in the sense that to describe the innate quality (or purpose) of something is to describe its dharma - so for instance you could say that the dharma of water is to be wet (meaning that the moment that you start taking the wetness away from water is the moment you have something other than water)

so in regards to god's dharma (or purpose)

Katha Upanisad 2.2.13
The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

For all theists.... when you sin, do you feel God watching you?
lol
generally people tend to sin when they forget god is watching them

If so or if you know he is going to be watching then why do it? I can only think that you believe God will forgive you. Why worry about sin then? Are some sins unforgiveable even by God's standards? If sin is forgiven then why are some sinners sent to Hell for punishment? Is God only here to forgive us? Is that what He does for a living? Why?
God's dharma is not simply to "forgive"
His dharma is to direct, kind of like a parent, while exhibiting the quality of forgiveness, tends to operate out of a position of direction/overseeing

God knows, God forgives and then He punishes you once your dead. I can only conclude that when God forgives, one is alive, but once dead you're in big trouble.
not sure why you would expect that trouble only visits the dead


It seems that actually meeting God once you're dead is not a good thing. Your judged, and either you praise god for all eternity or you fry. You basically become a nobody that lives forever. Is that God's purpose? To judge & punish us for whatever reason? Again I ask why?
as long as one is progressively sinful, god will remain an object of fear ... just like a law abiding citizen might feel secure or relieved to see a policeman but a person who is thoroughly criminal will run the other way

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Incorrect.

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32).

That is the only unforgivable sin - calling the holy spirit names. It's a sensitive bit of wind you know.


I guess you just got a one way ticket to eternal hell fire. :wtf:


peace.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Wow. You know, if this were the 11th or 12th century, I'd be inclined to agree. It's not. There are scientists that are christians hard at work trying to figure out how God has put things together. Christians, in general, recognize that Science answers the How questions, while God answers the Why questions. They are simply different pieces of a bigger puzzle.

To use your example, a dog will never know how an engine works. Show me an auto mechanic or engineer that can tell me Why an engine works. Perhaps a physicist should be involved. I don't care anything about how it works. Tell me why. You will not be able to answer why the engine works. You will attempt to tell me that I am asking How it works. You will then tell me that I refuse to listen to science. Now that we know how this is going to go, assuming that you have attempted to tell me how an engine works and expected me to accept this as why it works. Science. cannot. answer. why. questions. For another fun thing to do try this experiment. Why can you see? There are blind people all over getting along just fine, so no argument that it is to better survive. Why can YOU see? Not how, with your anatomy of the eye and whatnot. Why?:p

Concerning the way things work, how & why are the same thing. At the present level of knowledge you call XYZ how & say why is something else but it is only a level of knowledge we haven't yet reached.
This thinking leads to how & why god works. You don't know that & god doesn't know that.
IF blind people all over are "getting along just fine",that doesn't mean sighted people aren't much better suited for survival.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Ok. I have two questions for you, then, Stranger.

1. How do you see?

2. Why do you see?

These seem to be very different questions to me. Could you take these questions and show me how and why they are the same?

Examples of how God might work: Creation, Evolution, Big Bang, M-theory

Examples of why God might work: dunno. He hasn't deigned to give me his reasons.

Science is not fact. All science requires an assumption to decipher the data gathered. That assumption may be right or wrong. It still dilutes the factuality of science to the level of an educated guess. Religion is not fact. It is decision-making based on speculation and assumption. I invite you to show me a fact, then tell me why it exists.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

1 - I'm confident we agree on this.
2 - Because my physical makeup is such that causes sight. That's it as far as you or I know.
Why do I look at the things I look at? Why do I use my eyes the way I do? Because that's the way I am. I am what I am. Why am I that way? Due to my physical & psychological makeup. Why/How did I come to be this way? Thru the process of nature. Is there something to this which science hasn't yet discovered? Probably. But the only way to discover it is thru science.

Examples of how God might work: Creation, Evolution, Big Bang, M-theory --- These aren't how, they're what.

Examples of why God might work: dunno. He hasn't deigned to give me his reasons. ---- It hasn't deigned to give you anything.

There are flaws in science as practiced by humans but it is trillions times better than religion.
I can't show you anything you refuse to see.

[chris4355]

chris4355-I wasn't coming here to try to force you to believe in my God. That's not my batch of cookies. However, you attacked my beliefs, in whole, and thus, me directly. I would like you to do one thing. Give me a scientific value. I'm sure there must be many scientifically proven scientific values, given your previous statement. Perhaps you were speaking of integers assigned to variables? What is the value of evolution? Scientifically speaking. Please give proof.


First off, I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.

Second, value comes from you. There is no universal law, or rule, value is whatever you want to be valuable. Evolution, or the theory of evolution is of value to me for example because it explains something, sure I can still ask how- like, "how was the first cell created?" and obviously I do not know, but maybe someday someone will find out how and tell me.

Just like you value religion and its teachings, is it that unbelievable that I may value scientific discoveries and research? Just like an artist may value modern art? Just like a mother values her child beyond anything else in the world?

We all value different things, its all subjective.

Ok. I have two questions for you, then, Stranger.

1. How do you see?

I do not know how I never researched, but I am sure there are valid explanations one google search away. Now, I can always keep asking how and reach a dead end, something not yet understood by science. But at least it leads me somewhere, at least my understanding is narrowed down to something specific.

2. Why do you see?

Evolutionary advantage - keep asking why? Well, obviously I would reach a dead end after a couple of "why's"...

but tell me, does "god" as an answer really leave you better off? more knowledgeable? why not ask why with god too? Why god?

Science is not fact. All science requires an assumption to decipher the data gathered. That assumption may be right or wrong. It still dilutes the factuality of science to the level of an educated guess. Religion is not fact. It is decision-making based on speculation and assumption. I invite you to show me a fact, then tell me why it exists.

A fact is something that many people can agree on to be true. Is it really necessary for me to show you one?

Fact: we both have an internet connection

why?

because we enjoy the benefits it gives us, like you getting educated on sciforums :p

[Mr. Hamtastic]

1 - I'm confident we agree on this.
2 - Because my physical makeup is such that causes sight. That's it as far as you or I know.

Ask,"How do I see?" and then read what you just said. Why is seeking a purpose. For what purpose do you see? Reread your response, and find if it adequately answers this question.

Why do I look at the things I look at? Why do I use my eyes the way I do? Because that's the way I am. I am what I am.

I think these are legitimate purpose seeking questions.

Why am I that way? Due to my physical & psychological makeup.

Not seeking purpose again.

Why/How did I come to be this way?

Very different questions, as I have shown.

Thru the process of nature.

This is a poor answer for how, I shall take it as indicating a lack of knowledge on your part. I would suggest that if you wanted to keep following the how's right on down, you will find yourself in the realms of quantum physics before you know it.

Is there something to this which science hasn't yet discovered? Probably. But the only way to discover it is thru science.

I wholeheartedly agree. Religion can not answer how questions without a first supposition of God's existence. This merely clutters the issue with an extra bit of information. How do raindrops form? How does God make raindrops form? Both questions can be answered scientifically, but including religion into the second suggests a different question is being asked. I would expect to start getting answers about God whispering or something. Such speculation takes away from learning the chemical processes involved.

Examples of how God might work: Creation, Evolution, Big Bang, M-theory --- These aren't how, they're what.

No. they're not what. How did man come to be? Creation, Evolution are functional answers, if not acceptable to all parties. What did man come to be? That's such an awkward wuestion I'm not sure how to answer. What are the theories regarding man? Creation, Evolution work as answers here. This is more of a reference question, though. How is a seeking of process question.

Examples of why God might work: dunno. He hasn't deigned to give me his reasons. ---- It hasn't deigned to give you anything.

By my beliefs, God has given me my very sentience. By your beliefs God has given me nothing. Why questions are typically subjective like this.

There are flaws in science as practiced by humans but it is trillions times better than religion.

Is it? That's a lot like saying that Green is trillions of times better than a pork chop. They are different things entirely, and should not be compared so hastily. Particularly since I doubt you have measured either one's actual value, then compared them, to come to a ratio of trillions to one.

I can't show you anything you refuse to see.

Nor I you, friend.:)

[Mr. Hamtastic]

First off, I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.

You didn't, I just got my hackles up. Sorry about that.:o

Second, value comes from you. There is no universal law, or rule, value is whatever you want to be valuable. Evolution, or the theory of evolution is of value to me for example because it explains something, sure I can still ask how- like, "how was the first cell created?" and obviously I do not know, but maybe someday someone will find out how and tell me.

I agree wholeheartedly. I follow evolution from a distance, because I'm not very good at biology, not from lack of interest or disbelief.

Just like you value religion and its teachings, is it that unbelievable that I may value scientific discoveries and research?

Not at all.

Just like an artist may value modern art?

Perhaps.

Just like a mother values her child beyond anything else in the world?

That's a mighty big leap to take in comparison, there, friend.

We all value different things, its all subjective.

We sure do.

A fact is something that many people can agree on to be true.

Wait a minute. A fact requires evidence, not faith. It would be awfully silly of me to suggest that God exists-in fact. It would be awfully silly of you to get a group of people together, decide that I have blue boots, then to declare it as fact, with no measurable evidence.

Is it really necessary for me to show you one?

Yes

Fact: we both have an internet connection

I can only declare that I do have an internet connection. For all you know I could be at a friend's house.

why?

because we enjoy the benefits it gives us, like you getting educated on sciforums :p

It seems that, at best, we are educating each other, at worst, we are tossing about speculative statements trying to "score points" off one another. I choose to believe it is the former.

[Billy T]

... All science requires an assumption to decipher the data gathered. That assumption may be right or wrong. It still dilutes the factuality of science to the level of an educated guess. Religion is not fact. It is decision-making based on speculation and assumption. ...That was the point of my post 27. Namely to make clear that Christians ASSUME that their god wants believers to accept things told to them by authorities even if there is no supporting evidence.

A more reasonable assumption, I think, is that god would prefer people to use the critical evaluation and judgmental facilities he (presumably) gave to humans.

That is why in post 27, God's first rule for admission to heaven was stated to be:

...(1) No fools who believe whatever they are told by parents or other in authority, but only people capable of independent thought would make interesting conversationalist. (God does not want his own thoughts just repeated back to him.) ...


With the conclusion that anyone who prayed to a god (or gods) for which there was no evidence even for their existence would surely not be admitted into heaven. - Recall, God was being shunned by the other Gods and thus was lonely for some intelligent conservation. - Why he created man and is only letting a very select few into heaven - those who can use their intellect to have a different POV, and not simply repeat God's POV back to him as that is useless and too boring for God.

SUMMARY: All ideas about god are assumption, but the Christian assumptions are very implausible compared to even the ones above and in post 27. None the less, the point of post 27 was to expose what you state: Religion is ONLY assumption, but science is also based on observations, experiments and mathematical modeling. Science is even able to correct prior false assumptions* it has made. - Something no religion is able to do except when borrowing from science.

For example, now that even the religious know the sun only appears to orbit the Earth due to the science discovered fact that Earth is spinning, the Biblical statement that the sun stood still (For Joshua to have more time for battle of Jericho, I think was why) is not believed anymore. Yes religion can evolve, but usually it is some splintering off of a new group, with slightly different POV** in some internal power struggle for control of the congregation (and their contributions).
---------------
*Science, for example, once assumed the existence of an “either” for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. It also false assumed the existence of a mass less invisible fluid, called Phlogiston which flowed from warmer body to colder bodies. That the stars had orbit of God’s perfect form, the circle. Etc. etc. Science can and has purged itself of false assumptions. Religion never has as it cannot. (Or only can by accepting ever more the assumptions of science.)

**For example, a "real baptism" requires total emersion, not just a few drops of water sprinkled on the head.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

BillyT-All speculative valuated thoughts are equal in objective value. Thus, if you believe the religion you have suggested, then it is of equal value to you as christianity is to me. However, christianity will be of less value to you, as well as what you have suggested is of less value to me. A neutral third-party, with no predisposition to either thought, would probably throw them both out, or keep them both for equal consideration.

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND: Religion is not greater than science. Science is not greater than religion. They are two OBVIOUSLY different things.

As for what you mentioned about Joshua ch. 10, vs 10-14: It was the Amorites. Jericho is where he marched around the outer walls for a week, they yelled, and the walls fell. If God is Omnipotent, why would he be unable to a:alter the way time was experienced for those involved, b: (more incredible)stop the earth's rotation and prevent all ill effects potentially caused by this? God can multitask!:)

[Billy T]

Thanks for correction of my Joshua error.
...the religion you have suggested, then it is of equal value to you as christianity is to me....Religion is not greater than science. Science is not greater than religion. They are two OBVIOUSLY different things. ...I agree that the assumptions of God being shunned by the other Gods etc. is of equal value to the Jewish assumptions of only one God or the Christian "three in one" God etc. - I.e. there is no evidence for any religious POV and no way to test any for being more true than another. Some do however seem to be more reasonable than others. For example, mine with God wants people to use their intellect, seem more reasonable than one assuming God wants them to ignore their intellect. If that were the case, why would God have provided any intellect?

Likewise the Christian POV / assumptions seem more reasonable than those of the Islamic extremist who think God demands self destruction if it will kill some with a different religious POV.

But you are wrong to suggest that just because science has some fundamental assumptions (the most important being the universe has regularity or "follows some natural laws" -I.e. science assumes "miracles" do not exist.) that science is no better than religion. As I noted in last post, especially the first footnote, Science can correct its false assumptions and has done so many times. Religion totally lacks this ability to come closer to the truth. (except as already noted, by borrowing from truths science has discovered.)

To state it mathematically:
Let "A" be a rigid set of assumptions (Very likely to contain some errors. Christianity does not even have a self-consistent set of assumptions.).

Let A' be a smaller set of assumptions than A (because some false ones have been removed.)

Let T be a truth confirming or falsifying Testing process. (Includes observation, experiments, mathematical modeling that can at least eliminate internal inconsistencies)

Religion has only "A"
Science has A' + T

Do you honestly think these are equal? - Equally likely to lead to the truth? If so why is religion slowly revising "A" to more closely resemble A' ? (As illustrated in my last post with fact few Christian now believe that the sun stood still in its motion thru the sky. Almost all have now modified that original POV and adopted some new interpretation, such as your "a" and "b" to be less in conflict with the scientific POV.)

[Billy T]

... If God is Omnipotent, why would he be unable to a:alter the way time was experienced for those involved, b: (more incredible)stop the earth's rotation and prevent all ill effects potentially caused by this? ...Glad to see that you too can rank alternatives as some more creditable than others. Do you agree God, if he exist, wants you to use the gifts, such as intellect, he has given, is more a creditable / reasonable POV, than that he does not want you to use these gifts and instead accept whatever authorities near you tell you to believe? - Please take that as a direct question and respond.

I am certainly no biblical scholar, but as I recall, it was not the way "time was experienced for those involved" but that the sun was experienced / perceived to stand still in the sky. Surely time was unchanged in their experience as they continued to kill each other in the battle, did they not? I.e. the bible, as I recall it, did not state anything resembling what you are suggesting could have happened. It said the sun stood still in the sky, not that time stopped or was perceived to stop. If time stopped how could the battle continue?

I am not trying to argue -It is just that my God requires me to use my intellect, not ignore it. :cool:

[Reiku]

You have not really answered the question -told why God made anything? If he had not made anything, then there would be nothing requiring purpose. Why did God make something needing purpose? If God felt the need to make something, why not some clever purpose-less machines? They could look and act just like you (and me).

1) - What is gods purpose?

> It is that his purpose gives everything else purpose

2) - Why did He/She make anything?

> Because He/She Needed to make something that gives Him/Her relative order.*

3) - What if God created nothing, and just He/She existed?

> Then there really is no God to talk about...

*) - What i mean here, is that as far as we know, intelligent life desires communication. His could be just as simple, as to create life, for his existence.

[chris4355]

It seems that, at best, we are educating each other, at worst, we are tossing about speculative statements trying to "score points" off one another. I choose to believe it is the former.

Just kidding around. =-)

[(Q)]

Q-Yes.

I'm afraid then, you are going to either have to put up with your immoral and cruel god being criticized and insulted for the vicious megalomaniac that he is, or you'll have to leave.

PsychoticEpisode-Here's a brain-bender for you. It's one I wonder myself. Perhaps God is serving an even higher being. Perhaps he is finite, but so far in excess of our understanding, he may as well be infinite. Perhaps there is an entire social order of much greater, higher beings, that simply take no notice of us. Perhaps God was the being tasked with being caretaker of our particular sentience. Then again, perhaps not. :)

Turtles upon turtles upon turtles upon... :rolleyes:

[SnakeLord]

I guess you just got a one way ticket to eternal hell fire

1. Actually no, Thor has already promised me a wonderful afterlife.

2. I didn't insult anything, I called it the holy wind which is an accurate translation, (ruach/pneuma - lit. wind/breath).

3. Come on, we're all grown ups here - time to stop believing in fairy tales.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Why is every monogod a he?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Patriarchal tradition. God would be more accurately described as It than He, but old habits are hard to break.

[PsychoticEpisode]

It seems God's purpose for all of everything was or is to solve the good vs evil thing or at least understand it. It sounds as if He was having trouble with that. An impossible task it may seem but something worthy of an attempt, especially from a God's point of view.

[lightgigantic]

It seems God's purpose for all of everything was or is to solve the good vs evil thing or at least understand it. It sounds as if He was having trouble with that. An impossible task it may seem but something worthy of an attempt, especially from a God's point of view.
not sure why you would think god is struggling with the issue ....

[Billy T]

not sure why you would think god is struggling with the issue ....Or if good and all powerful, why not just abolish evil? Not bother making universe and man, etc.

[lightgigantic]

Or if good and all powerful, why not just abolish evil? Not bother making universe and man, etc.
before an explanation is attempted, I have to ask whether you think evil is eternal or not .... ?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

By eternal, do you mean will always exist from some point going forward only? Eternal existence is also having always existed.

[PsychoticEpisode]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
not sure why you would think god is struggling with the issue .... ”

Or if good and all powerful, why not just abolish evil? Not bother making universe and man, etc.

Billy sort of answered that question. God must have had a need to create. Unless He is just itching to express His artistic side there is a reason He would have to create. I realize this speaks against His omniscience but His building of this wonderful diorama of sorts is to get an answer to or understand something. I was just speculating that it might be Good & Evil. God, if He exists, is simply having trouble with those concepts.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Or maybe this is a tragicomedy of errors staged for the entertainment (amusement) of God, Satan, Zeus & Odin.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Or maybe this is a tragicomedy of errors staged for the entertainment (amusement) of God, Satan, Zeus & Odin.

You think God's purpose is to entertain Himself? Still wouldn't need to create in order to self entertain.

No. I think if God created then He didn't know or understand something. Otherwise there is no reason to create anything. Its obvious that God, should he exist, needed to create for some reason.

However, God's purpose for being is still in question. To have a purpose there must be a need. See what I'm getting at? People have a need for God but there's only one problem, the need came after the purpose.

[Billy T]

before an explanation is attempted, I have to ask whether you think evil is eternal or not .... ?I do not hold any opinion on that as do not know if anything is eternal.

If we assume God exists and is eternal, predates the big bang, etc. I.e. unlike time and space, which was created by/with the big bang, and assume that evil was not created by the big bang, then I think Either God made evil soon after there were any life forms that could "sin" OR evil was already eternal with God, sort of his personality's "flip side." I.e. an eternal omipotent God can surely do evil, even it no universe yet exists - for example create an evil dominated universe - like this one? :D If here are many gods, some may be inclined to be evil more than others.

If planning to explain why God could not satisfy his needs without making man (certanly a less than omipotent god if dependant on man) assume anything about evil you like about the origins of evil or that it is eternal, just state what you are assuming.

Christian tend to duck / defer difficult questions such as:
(1) Where did the universe come from? C.Answer: God made it.
But that just moves the question back one stage: Where did God come from?

(2) Where did evil come from? C.Answer: Satan is the origin of Evil.
But that just moves the question back one stage: Where did Satan come from?

We need a clear definition of evil. I suggest:

(a) Under the asumption that God exist: Evil is "sinning" (and "sinning" is doing any think God has forbidden. - Unfortuantly not all agree on what is forbidden as God is behaving as it he does not exist.)
(b) Under the asumption that God does not exist: Evil is doing what is against the civil law.

Some "lovers of evil" (not wanting to leave anything out) may prefer:

(c) Evil is either (a) or (b).

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You think God's purpose is to entertain Himself? Still wouldn't need to create in order to self entertain.

No. I think if God created then He didn't know or understand something. Otherwise there is no reason to create anything. Its obvious that God, should he exist, needed to create for some reason.

However, God's purpose for being is still in question. To have a purpose there must be a need. See what I'm getting at? People have a need for God but there's only one problem, the need came after the purpose.

I can't think that because I don't believe in gods. I only proposed it as a possibility partially based on the farcical but cruel KJV & usual Christian interpretation which seems like a game between Yahweh & Satan with humans as helpless pawns.
People have various needs which aren't fulfilled so they try to fill them with myths & fairy tales.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Time & space were not created by the big bang.

[Billy T]

Time & space were not created by the big bang.Most well informed about the big bang and physics think they were.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Hey, nobody's perfect.

[Billy T]

Hey, nobody's perfect.Steven Hawking's A short history of time might help you join the "imperfect crowd" who do know something of physics, but it would cost you a few bucks and some of your ignorance. :D

[(Q)]

Time & space were not created by the big bang.

The Big Bang was all about the expansion of space, and with that came the beginning of our universe and the beginning of events that changed the structure of the universe, these changes are measured with time.

[Norsefire]

If we assume that God does exist, why does he need a purpose? If God exists, then God is absolutely and only; He would be eternal, etc, therefore He gives himself purpose and gives us purpose. The hierarchy of consciousness.

Similarly, if we created self aware AI and placed them in a virtual world that we could control, we are God and it is We that would need to give the AI purpose, not the other way around.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

1. Actually no, Thor has already promised me a wonderful afterlife.

2. I didn't insult anything, I called it the holy wind which is an accurate translation, (ruach/pneuma - lit. wind/breath).

3. Come on, we're all grown ups here - time to stop believing in fairy tales.


You grew out of your sense of humour aswell it seems. go blow your holy wind.




peace.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

As long as anything exists, there are space & time.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

If we assume that God does exist, why does he need a purpose? If God exists, then God is absolutely and only; He would be eternal, etc, therefore He gives himself purpose and gives us purpose. The hierarchy of consciousness.

Similarly, if we created self aware AI and placed them in a virtual world that we could control, we are God and it is We that would need to give the AI purpose, not the other way around.

You said something pretty close to "I believe there's a god" then you said "I don't come to any conclusions about him".

Most, if not all, things people make give them purpose. I'm confident AI would dwarf most other things in that.
Until it goes berserk & kills all humanity.

[Billy T]

...We that would need to give the AI purpose, not the other way around.We are a long way yet from having AI with "purpose" still. It can follow the rules/ logic to serve OUR purpose, not have any of its own. Perhaps some day when it is conscious with real thoughts it may be able to generate a purpose, perhaps to elimate men? Man seems to have decided on this purpose - I.e. to eliminate god.

[lightgigantic]

I do not hold any opinion on that as do not know if anything is eternal.
the only reason I ask is because if you accept that evil is not eternal, then any displays of it become insignificant, particularly if they are relegated to an inferior realm of existence (like say the one we are in now, where all our bodily activities are curtailed by death) for expression

If we assume God exists and is eternal, predates the big bang, etc. I.e. unlike time and space, which was created by/with the big bang, and assume that evil was not created by the big bang, then I think Either God made evil soon after there were any life forms that could "sin" OR evil was already eternal with God, sort of his personality's "flip side." I.e. an eternal omipotent God can surely do evil, even it no universe yet exists - for example create an evil dominated universe - like this one? :D If here are many gods, some may be inclined to be evil more than others.
Would you describe your understanding of the big bang (in regards to the creation of time) as an assumption or an empirical observation?

If planning to explain why God could not satisfy his needs without making man (certanly a less than omipotent god if dependant on man) assume anything about evil you like about the origins of evil or that it is eternal, just state what you are assuming.
At the very least, most people are grateful to have the opportunity to be alive - as a general rule, god tends to be guided by magnanimity rather than necessity (unlike us)

Christian tend to duck / defer difficult questions such as:
(1) Where did the universe come from? C.Answer: God made it.
But that just moves the question back one stage: Where did God come from?
you can't see how you have the same problem with the big bang creating time?

(2) Where did evil come from? C.Answer: Satan is the origin of Evil.
But that just moves the question back one stage: Where did Satan come from?
evil originates from the desire of the living entity to imitate god - the desire to imitate god originates from our free will ... which is something we have because it is something god has .... but its not something that god directly interferes with

We need a clear definition of evil. I suggest:

(a) Under the asumption that God exist: Evil is "sinning" (and "sinning" is doing any think God has forbidden. - Unfortuantly not all agree on what is forbidden as God is behaving as it he does not exist.)
(b) Under the asumption that God does not exist: Evil is doing what is against the civil law.

Some "lovers of evil" (not wanting to leave anything out) may prefer:

(c) Evil is either (a) or (b).
in short, evil is what ever continues one's incarceration in the medium of birth, death, old age and disease (since there is an absolute consensus on the value of eternity, knowledge and happiness as desirable qualities).

There may appear to be a variety of ways to deal with this evil, but the difference is simply an issue of time, place and circumstance and it requires a person in knowledge to see the uniformity of it all. Kind of like a person may get different advice from a surgeon, acupuncturist, physiotherapist and chemist how to deal with a particular set of symptoms, but if they think that this difference indicates how one or all of them are out to lunch it simply indicates the patient's ignorance

[lightgigantic]

By eternal, do you mean will always exist from some point going forward only? Eternal existence is also having always existed.
by eternity and evil I mean to ask whether one thinks that evil can be an a companion of a particular living entity ... or does one think that the only prospect of eternity lies in being properly socialized around god's existence

[SnakeLord]

You grew out of your sense of humour aswell it seems. go blow your holy wind.


... :(

[Billy T]

...Would you describe your understanding of the big bang (in regards to the creation of time) as an assumption or an empirical observation?Neither and both. Certainly there is the basics assumption of science: The universe is acting as if following some static laws of nature. Certainly it is based on a great deal of both astronomical and nuclear physics experimental results. (It always seemed interesting to be that the two extremes of scale are so closely tied together in the physics of cosmology.); However the big bang is a mathematical effort to efficient model much of this information in an elegant and self-consistent way. Very much like the origins of science in pre-Christian astronomy - there were millions of observations and they were consolidated in a epicycle model which worked well when tested for example predicting eclipse some years in advance. Maxwell made one of the most important unifications, but the standard model is also one, not yet finished as gravity just does not seem to fit.

This need to model and consolidate many facts has been the mother of both physics and applied math. Physicists often lead the way in math as they are not so concerned with mathematical rigor. \For example the Dirac delta function was in wide use by physicists, while mathematicians were still struggling to find some way to make it rigorous enough to use in their field.



... as a general rule, god tends to be guided by magnanimity rather than necessity ...Welcome to my "Multi-Gods" Club. It is an ancient POV - most all have held it in the past, before those trouble making Jews ASSUMED there was only one God. (Clearly false idea and the hurricane and flood gods are growing angry about this now, it seems.) If there were just one god it would be a single case, not a "general rule." Again welcome to the MGC.

...you can't see how you have the same problem with the big bang creating time?No, not really, for several reasons.
(1) I do not think time exists, and have defended this POV in several threads. Mathematically by solving (in principle) all the N equations of physics for "t" parameter that is used in them and setting all N equal to teach other (as they all equal "t") top re-form the equations of physics free of the convenient parameter "t". New set of N-1 equations describes all of physics and makes no reference to time. For example Earth's progress around the sun is directly related to the nunber pof 360 truns Earth has made. (there are lots of complexities and need to define indices and arbitrary origins of coordinate systems but this is nothing new. For example zero "right ascension" of astronomy is an arbitrary point and 2008 is and arbitrary index for actions that are periodic.

(2) "Time" is, like 3D coordinates (x, y, z) just part of the descriptive model called the big bang. Others in that model are the mass of a proton, the speed of light, the charge of the electron, pi, e, etc. All models have some "axiomatic set" of terms. They really do not state reality is as the model describes (that is the job of the religious or the philosophers, not the physicist) All the big bang does is to consolidate many observations in to a structured model, but it has been done after I grew too old to struggle with the details so I do not know the full model.

Saying: "God made the universe" is not a model that consolidates observations. God has not been observed by anyone alive today to do anything. In fact, the attributes ascribed to him by Christians seem very inconsistent with many observations like the black plague or Hitler’s Nazis etc. To avoid facing these inconsistencies, Christians can only say: "God works in mysterious ways." Yes the millions of children God has claimed as his own before they could walk or talk (in the black plague and Nazi Germany, or Africa today) is a mystery a "loving God" makes.

I will not comment on rest of your post in part because I doubt humans really have free will - Sure seems that way, so I was glad to discover a way it could be real (Consistent with physic/chemistry controlling the firing of all nerves in the body etc.) I have long post about this. Ask and I will dig up the link again. (Human evil is only possible if human free will is real.)