Was God Bored?

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I’ve been introduced to a heretical thought via a new author I’ve come across, Michael Sharp. He suggests that God, the original Monad, instantiated creation because despite God’s own eternal bliss, God got bored. God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored. God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?

[WishboneDawn]

I like the idea that God got lonely myself (I think it was an atheist journalist who I first heard this idea from). It seems more satisfying and more true to the human condition, which is all you're ever talking about when you're personifying God (whether you believe or not).

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I think it is inescapable for personal theism... God must have had some form of deficiency or lack in order to be motivated to create.

[Half-Life]

I’ve been introduced to a heretical thought via a new author I’ve come across, Michael Sharp. He suggests that God, the original Monad, instantiated creation because despite God’s own eternal bliss, God got bored. God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored. God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?


While that may be a nice thought, where's the evidence? That guy just thought the current concepts of God don't explain jack shit, so he made up his own view of what God is like. But him, like everyone else, still has no evidence for his conclusion.

how do we know God was bored? Did he talk to God?

It's reasons like this why the word "God" means absolutely nothing.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Or you could take the "Love" angle and propose that God, being love, created out of an overflow of that love; love needing an object created the need, therefore God was lonely, in a sense.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I’ve been introduced to a heretical thought via a new author I’ve come across, Michael Sharp. He suggests that God, the original Monad, instantiated creation because despite God’s own eternal bliss, God got bored. God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored. God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?


While that may be a nice thought, where's the evidence? That guy just thought the current concepts of God don't explain jack shit, so he made up his own view of what God is like. But him, like everyone else, still has no evidence for his conclusion.

how do we know God was bored? Did he talk to God?

It's reasons like this why the word "God" means absolutely nothing.
Mybe God did talk to him, she talks to me. :)

[Half-Life]

While that may be a nice thought, where's the evidence? That guy just thought the current concepts of God don't explain jack shit, so he made up his own view of what God is like. But him, like everyone else, still has no evidence for his conclusion.

how do we know God was bored? Did he talk to God?

It's reasons like this why the word "God" means absolutely nothing.
Mybe God did talk to him, she talks to me. :)

Tell her to talk to me as well please.:)

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I actually think that God's motivation was multifaceted and in part formed from a need or needs.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Mybe God did talk to him, she talks to me. :)

Tell her to talk to me as well please.:)
She told me she does this already.

In all seriousness, don't you ever get a "still small voice" inside you?

Sometimes for me it is not still or small, but overwhelming and joyous. She is very happy with everything, even the ugly parts.

[Half-Life]

Tell her to talk to me as well please.:)
She told me she does this already.

In all seriousness, don't you ever get a "still small voice" inside you?

Sometimes for me it is not still or small, but overwhelming and joyous. She is very happy with everything, even the ugly parts.

The voice sounds strangely like my own voice.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

She told me she does this already.

In all seriousness, don't you ever get a "still small voice" inside you?

Sometimes for me it is not still or small, but overwhelming and joyous. She is very happy with everything, even the ugly parts.

The voice sounds strangely like my own voice.
Actually, that would also makes sense since She is you and you are her. That still small voice is you and it is her... see what I mean?

[Half-Life]

The voice sounds strangely like my own voice.
Actually, that would also makes sense since She is you and you are her. That still small voice is you and it is her... see what I mean?

Sounds like you're playing mind games.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I'm not smart enough to play mind games... this is just what I believe.

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm going to go out on a limb and make the claim that there has never been a single instance where God was bored. Or happy for that matter. Or angry, depressed or ambivalent.

The whole "not existing" thing goes a long way towards precluding any kind of emotional state whatsoever.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I'm going to go out on a limb and make the claim that there has never been a single instance where God was bored. Or happy for that matter. Or angry, depressed or ambivalent.

The whole "not existing" thing goes a long way towards precluding any kind of emotional state whatsoever.
Oh, come on and "play" with it a little, for sake of argument.
What would it mean if God got bored? Would that diminish God?

[ohmi]

I’ve been introduced to a heretical thought via a new author I’ve come across, Michael Sharp. He suggests that God, the original Monad, instantiated creation because despite God’s own eternal bliss, God got bored. God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?
:)

Dunno about skeptics and traditional theists, but My God created space-time [our 'universe'] so is 'beyond' time [and space] ... time began when space-time was created and ends at the end of space-time, so to God it is just a [boring? :D] object , complete, finished, fully known.

God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

There is no "then" with timeless God , creation is just one 'end'of a fixed object , but in order to have known all things, time has to include blind factitious 'beings' to 'experience' and 'suffer' it in place of God [who cannot suffer, being time-less]

One can perhaps remember the wholeness of God from the moment of first conciousness [as I do] , and even bliss ain't boring [but an extraordinary pleasure to be away from the empty concerns of 'life' [slow 'painful' death] in this factitious world run by the blind for the blind...

[Valdemar]

God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored. God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?

As long as he's making up something anyway, why not make it interesting? Here, let me give it a try:

1. God stuck all of creation in a cookie jar and is going to eat it someday.
2. God farted and out came all of creation.
3. God spent all of his energy on creating everything and disappeared from the sheer effort.
4. God is actually Zeus, Hercules, Hera etc. The Greeks were right.
5. We don't actually exist. We exist only as a dream and you're in a coma right now on planet Ixpor-7.

I could keep this up all day. Maybe I could even write a book about it.

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh, come on and "play" with it a little, for sake of argument.

OK, fine. The OP's argument is nonsensical. It posits that God got bored with eternal bliss so he made creation. If it was truly eternal bliss, then he could not have gotten bored with it, as it would mean that the blissful state was not, in fact, eternal.

Additionally, if he'd imagined all imaginings, then he'd have imagined what it would be like to directly experience something from a limited perspective and any knowledge gained from experiences that lesser beings would ever experience would never be anything more than a subset of what he'd already gone over.

The god that is posited in the OP could not have gotten bored, nor found a cure for boredom via creation. If God is posited as a limited being, then fine, he could get bored and work to find a cure for this boredom by creating the universe and us along with it. A limitless god in a state of eternal bliss is inconsistent with this, though.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I’ve been introduced to a heretical thought via a new author I’ve come across, Michael Sharp. He suggests that God, the original Monad, instantiated creation because despite God’s own eternal bliss, God got bored. God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?
:)

Dunno about skeptics and traditional theists, but My God created space-time [our 'universe'] so is 'beyond' time [and space] ... time began when space-time was created and ends at the end of space-time, so to God it is just a [boring? :D] object , complete, finished, fully known.
Fully known? Sounds boring, doesnt it? What motivated your (My?) God to create?

God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

...One can perhaps remember the wholeness of God from the moment of first conciousness [as I do] , and even bliss ain't boring [but an extraordinary pleasure to be away from the empty concerns of 'life' [slow 'painful' death] in this factitious world run by the blind for the blind...
But what motivated God to create then? If it was all bliss without any need whatsoever then why create?

[Jedi Mind Trick]

God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored. God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?

As long as he's making up something anyway, why not make it interesting? Here, let me give it a try:

1. God stuck all of creation in a cookie jar and is going to eat it someday.
2. God farted and out came all of creation.
3. God spent all of his energy on creating everything and disappeared from the sheer effort.
4. God is actually Zeus, Hercules, Hera etc. The Greeks were right.
5. We don't actually exist. We exist only as a dream and you're in a coma right now on planet Ixpor-7.

I could keep this up all day. Maybe I could even write a book about it.
Now, at least some of those things you are suggesting are more interesting than "there is no God" kind of stuff. I especially liked number 5. :)

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Oh, come on and "play" with it a little, for sake of argument.

OK, fine. The OP's argument is nonsensical. It posits that God got bored with eternal bliss so he made creation. If it was truly eternal bliss, then he could not have gotten bored with it, as it would mean that the blissful state was not, in fact, eternal.

Additionally, if he'd imagined all imaginings, then he'd have imagined what it would be like to directly experience something from a limited perspective and any knowledge gained from experiences that lesser beings would ever experience would never be anything more than a subset of what he'd already gone over.

The god that is posited in the OP could not have gotten bored, nor found a cure for boredom via creation. If God is posited as a limited being, then fine, he could get bored and work to find a cure for this boredom by creating the universe and us along with it. A limitless god in a state of eternal bliss is inconsistent with this, though.

Perhaps it doesn't work with Bliss... what about the other option? The one I posted above about the overflow of love needing an object?

[ohmi]

Fully known? Sounds boring, doesnt it? What motivated your (My?) God to create?

:)

Again, there is no motivation or boredom where there is no time, God is time-less ...



[quote]
But what motivated God to create then? If it was all bliss without any need whatsoever then why create?There is no such thing as motive where there is no time, how could there be ? ...

The creation is simply 'inevitable' ,simply is... because God knows all things, so He knows the experience of time and suffering [through us, ....we thus ARE His knowing, projected into time , because God as spirit cannot experience time or suffering ...]

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Fully known? Sounds boring, doesnt it? What motivated your (My?) God to create?

:)

Again, there is no motivation or boredom where there is no time, God is time-less ...

It is suggested that time is an illusion even in this universe. Do you suppose the universe is itself actually time-less, time being a construct of ego?

What you say is interesting, but I must confess I have a hard time not thinking linearly. And so "no motivation" strikes me as "no existence" as the atheists suggest.

[sensiblesue]

Reminds me of that sf story by Asimov, "The Last Answer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHilabPBPHI)."

[Tom Sawyer]

Perhaps it doesn't work with Bliss... what about the other option? The one I posted above about the overflow of love needing an object?

Need of anything requires limits. If God were unfulfilled in any way, be that emotionally, intellectually or what have you, it means that he is a limited being. If he had an overflow of love, it means that he had a limited capacity to hold in all the love he was creating. If he needs an object, it means that he is limited in his ability to fulfill his own needs. If the act of creation was - in whole or in part - done to provide God with something that he was incomplete without having, it is necessary to then conclude that God is limited and incomplete.

That's not to say that an unlimited God could not be postulated who preformed the act of creation for other reasons, be they a whim, part of a plan or whatever. However, when you bring in the premise that God created the universe in part to provide himself with something he did not have without it, you are simultaneously creating the additional premise that God is necessarily limited and incomplete.

So you're correct that this is a heretical point of view. There's no logical way of holding it without holding the additional view that God just isn't all he's cracked up to be.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

What about ohmi's post above about time and God not needing anything and creation is just automatic; a necessity of God's omniscience or something? That is if I understand ohmi’s point correctly...

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Perhaps God is limited?

[Tom Sawyer]

Perhaps God is limited?

He would have to be in order to require anything.

My point was that you cannot have a limitless god that needs things. The two things are logically contradictory.

[GenesisNemesis]

Perhaps God is limited?

How would this be determined? How would God being unlimited be determined? It fascinates me how people claim to know so much about "God".

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Perhaps God creates as a function of his/her/its existence. In the same way we inhale and exhale as a function of our physical existence?

What would be the logical downfall of this idea, assuming the existence of God of course?

Would this limit God?

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Perhaps God is limited?

How would this be determined? How would God being unlimited be determined? It fascinates me how people claim to know so much about "God".
Hey, not so fast now... all I'm doing is asking questions assuming the existence of God. Which I do so assume in fact, but I claim no special knowledge.

[GenesisNemesis]

Hey, not so fast now... all I'm doing is asking questions assuming the existence of God. Which I do so assume in fact, but I claim no special knowledge.

I worded my post probably unconsciously (at least semi-consciously) so I would get out of this hole. It might have been in my mind as a possibility. Oh well. Well, your post made it kind of confusing, since you said "Perhaps God is limited". :Cheeky:

It seemed like more of a statement than a question, to me.

[Half-Life]

What if God made up Christianity and lied to everyone he spoke to? What if he's a really evil backstabbing son of a bitch who has been laughing hysterically in Heaven for 2,000 years at how many people believe the Bible? What if he lied to Moses? I bet it was hard for him to hand out the ten commandments with a straight face.

Then, people die and he says "I was kidding and you fell for it! ROFL!"

What if that God exists? :)

[Jedi Mind Trick]

What if God made up Christianity and lied to everyone he spoke to? What if he's a really evil backstabbing son of a bitch who has been laughing hysterically in Heaven for 2,000 years at how many people believe the Bible? What if he lied to Moses? I bet it was hard for him to hand out the ten commandments with a straight face.

Then, people die and he says "I was kidding and you fell for it! ROFL!"

What if that God exists? :)
Well obviously then, we would all be screwed, right? I suppose that I'll just pretend that I have it all figured out and that there is no God. That'll make all the bad possibilities go away, right?

[ohmi]

Perhaps God creates as a function of his/her/its existence. In the same way we inhale and exhale as a function of our physical existence?


:)

Yeah, this is how I currently see it... Neither God nor men are 'responsible' for sin and evil , rather God in knowing about them created mankind as God's awareness of them [for the spirit in itself cannot suffer, cannot be bound in time as we appear to be for a while]

Yet God reassures men about Love by creating within this world a manifestation of Love that is there inherently ,something in God, not of the world's ways :-

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him;
and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life;
and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not.
[John 1:1-5]

Jesus is thus the sign from God that no 'responsibility' for sin falls upon men
and that God's apparent [and declared] plan is simply the progressive stages of redemption of creation from belief in unloving ways


John 1:29 "... Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

[DancesWithCoffeeCups]

I’ve been introduced to a heretical thought via a new author I’ve come across, Michael Sharp. He suggests that God, the original Monad, instantiated creation because despite God’s own eternal bliss, God got bored. God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored. God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?

This atheist has yet to have discovered any evidence for the existence of any claimed gods.

[figuer]

God is playwright, producer and main actor...so yes, he was bored.

[Igor Trip]

God being bored and needing a hobby would explain an awful lot about this world.

[ohmi]

I’ve been introduced to a heretical thought via a new author I’ve come across, Michael Sharp. He suggests that God, the original Monad, instantiated creation because despite God’s own eternal bliss, God got bored. God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored. God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?

This atheist has yet to have discovered any evidence for the existence of any claimed gods.

The evidence is promised for later ... no rush... despite the nonsense that religionists teach the gullible...

[ohmi]

God is playwright, producer and main actor...so yes, he was bored.

It takes time in which to get bored, God is without time , time-less.

[DancesWithCoffeeCups]

This atheist has yet to have discovered any evidence for the existence of any claimed gods.

The evidence is promised for later ... no rush... despite the nonsense that religionists teach the gullible...

How does your particular flavor of nonsense differ? So far from what I've read from your postings I can't see that it does.

[TheRealityOfMan]

I think God's just sitting there watching the wheels go round and round.

[Gawen]

This atheist has yet to have discovered any evidence for the existence of any claimed gods.

The evidence is promised for later ... no rush... despite the nonsense that religionists teach the gullible...The word "gullible" isn't even a word. It's not in any dictionary, just so you know.

[Gawen]

Again, there is no motivation or boredom where there is no time, God is time-less ...
This would imply, as there is no time and God is timeless, that God would not know joy, or bliss or anger. Without emotions there would be no motivation. God essentially is nothing but a mass of...what...goo?

There is no such thing as motive where there is no time, how could there be ? ...

The creation is simply 'inevitable' ,simply is... because God knows all things, so He knows the experience of time and suffering [through us, ....we thus ARE His knowing, projected into time , because God as spirit cannot experience time or suffering ...]Then God cannot create without motivation. He could not know anything because he would have no frame of reference for anything outside his 'time'...or insdie time, depending on one's point of view.

And this brings up this:
Perhaps God creates as a function of his/her/its existence. In the same way we inhale and exhale as a function of our physical existence? This limits a god to nothing more substantial than an amoeba or a simple bacterium. God does nothing but inhale/eat and exhale/shit creations? Because it would have to have many kazzillions of creations/universes if that's what it does every time it breathed. And don't go into the lame excuse that it may have only breathed once. The more one digs, the bigger the hole one digs into.

The god we are puzzling over in this thread, if outside 'time' cannot have a bearing on us. It could not create something outside its own time. And if it did, it would never know it. And those in that creation could never know the god that created them

[Question]

man nipples are poof that god was bored....

[Apostate1970]

I’ve been introduced to a heretical thought via a new author I’ve come across, Michael Sharp. He suggests that God, the original Monad, instantiated creation because despite God’s own eternal bliss, God got bored. God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored. God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?

A few things to consider about this:

1) Firstly it entails the rejection of monism and, in particular, of idealism. This could be put a myriad of different ways but here are a few:

God's having a mental content ensures that it is real... there's no additional act that has to occur. There just is no "matter" that can be added to the forms which comprise God's mental contents to "make them" real... they already are real. God's thoughts constitute the true and the real. God thinks only necessary propositions.

2) The very word "monad" is too closely tied up with monism and idealism to really even allow for it's use here in this way.

Monadic emanationism => boredom theory wrong
Leibnizian Monadism => boredom theory wrong

Leibniz himself was an idealist by the way.

3) Monism and idealism have far, far too long and strong a pedigree among theistic believers of all stripes to be casually dismissed in this way. If you're going to endorse a concept of god that effectively precludes many, perhaps most, self-proclaimed believers from ever having been believers at all (from ever having "the right" concept) then you've got a world of work to do.

4) The boredom theory very clearly expresses a lack or deficiency of some sort in God. But this is ruled out by definition.

5) In what respect is a being with a limited perspective equal to God? Again, this is ruled out by definition.

6) Supposing that God made beings that were equal in some other respect, for example, power, then God would cease to be all-powerful. Once again, ruled out by definition.

7) The thought may be heretical but it or something sufficiently like it is not even remotely new. It turns up a lot in various Greek stories.

8) Michael Sharp runs a website with a new-age guru feel. This alone, before we hear or read or see anything else at all, should set our skeptical alarms blaring full force.

[figuer]

It takes time in which to get bored, God is without time , time-less.Perhaps god got bored of being timeless, and thus invented time...

[Scifinerdgrl]

Imagine how god feels every sunday, listening to all that drivel in churches around the world. It was one thing when they were all in a few time zones, but now it all goes on for an ummm eternity.

[ohmi]

What if God made up Christianity and lied to everyone he spoke to? What if he's a really evil backstabbing son of a bitch who has been laughing hysterically in Heaven for 2,000 years at how many people believe the Bible? What if he lied to Moses? I bet it was hard for him to hand out the ten commandments with a straight face.

Then, people die and he says "I was kidding and you fell for it! ROFL!"

What if that God exists? :)
Well obviously then, we would all be screwed, right?

:)

- Not apparently so, God freely admits that He created evil and strongly deludes almost everyone for now :-

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

but everything turns out fine in the end :-

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men...

I suppose that I'll just pretend that I have it all figured out and that there is no God. That'll make all the bad possibilities go away, right?

No harm done, since God also says that He will, in due course ,Himself teach everyone all truth [Joel 2:28, John 16:13]

[ohmi]

The evidence is promised for later ... no rush... despite the nonsense that religionists teach the gullible...

How does your particular flavor of nonsense differ? So far from what I've read from your postings I can't see that it does.

:)

All creeds that I know of are inconsistent with scripture [even those that say that they are based upon it!] ... so I do not have a fixed creed ...

This seems a good idea, not only for avoiding inconsistency of belief, but because God promises [in scripture] to teach everyone Himself eventually , so it is worth waiting for , if one believes in Love and the God of Love...

[ohmi]

The evidence is promised for later ... no rush... despite the nonsense that religionists teach the gullible...The word "gullible" isn't even a word. It's not in any dictionary, just so you know.

:)

imho ... get a better dictionary ... like this one (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=gullible)

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=gullible

[figuer]

Not apparently so, God freely admits that He created evil and strongly deludes almost everyone for now ....No harm done, since God also says that He will, in due course ,Himself teach everyone all truth "No harm done"...except unmeasurable suffering...your god is an schizophrenic sycho...like the universe...thus I have no problem with such a god...except when people pretend that it is good and free from evil.

[ohmi]

Again, there is no motivation or boredom where there is no time, God is time-less ...
This would imply, as there is no time and God is timeless, that God would not know joy, or bliss or anger. Without emotions there would be no motivation. God essentially is nothing but a mass of...what...goo?


:)

Well it's usually called 'spirit' , but without space and time , formless , whole and integrated , I suppose you might mistake it for 'goo' ... dunno >:D<

Then God cannot create without motivation. He could not know anything because he would have no frame of reference for anything outside his 'time'...or inside time, depending on one's point of view.That is the point, God has no time , He knows time only through His creation, us ... but to Him it is complete , all the way to the end of time , and all known , no blindness to the future as most of us have...

John 16:13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: ...: and He will shew you things to come.

And this brings up this:
Perhaps God creates as a function of his/her/its existence. In the same way we inhale and exhale as a function of our physical existence? This limits a god to nothing more substantial than an amoeba or a simple bacterium. God does nothing but inhale/eat and exhale/shit creations? Because it would have to have many kazzillions of creations/universes if that's what it does every time it breathed. And don't go into the lame excuse that it may have only breathed once. The more one digs, the bigger the hole one digs into.

The god we are puzzling over in this thread, if outside 'time' cannot have a bearing on us. It could not create something outside its own time. And if it did, it would never know it. And those in that creation could never know the god that created them Imagine a programmer creating a virtual reality program... he can create virtual 'beings' in that program and they can investigate and react to their virtual world as the program is run, but hey cannot know the programmmer unless he tells them, and cannot know that they are programmed unless it is explained to them in a way they understand ...

So God does not have to have His own 'time' at all , and He does not have to be part of this world to control it completely ...
:notworthy:

[ohmi]

Not apparently so, God freely admits that He created evil and strongly deludes almost everyone for now ....No harm done, since God also says that He will, in due course ,Himself teach everyone all truth "No harm done"...except unmeasurable suffering...your god is an schizophrenic psycho...like the universe...thus I have no problem with such a god...except when people pretend that it is good and free from evil.

:)

... Unless you consider the possibility that this reality is not real to God , not spirit ... because the spirit is without time and space , distinct, separate ... and this apparent reality is [we know] transient, temporal, bound for destruction [time ends , just as space-time began, time is finite]

The ultimate reality then is what created space-tme, not this transient universe , that is the 'spirit' , the creator, God ...

Then it is at least possible [and scripture details it] that this world merely demonstrates that evil cannot persist ... thus since God could not experience anything, He does so through us , so we are created because God knows evil , we literally are God's knowing of evil ... so the suffering has to be , inevitably because of the knowingness of God , it could not have been otherwise , and in a sense it is only a [bad] dream, not real as far as the spirit is concerned ...

and in the end evil is no more, the point is established for good of all ...

[ohmi]

Imagine how god feels every sunday, listening to all that drivel in churches around the world. It was one thing when they were all in a few time zones, but now it all goes on for an ummm eternity.
:)

LOLOL!

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling::rolling: :rolling:

Fortunately we know that time is finite, so the madness does eventually end, thank God ? >:D<

[ohmi]

If you're going to endorse a concept of god that effectively precludes many, perhaps most, self-proclaimed believers from ever having been believers at all (from ever having "the right" concept) then you've got a world of work to do.


Hi, :)

Hardly "a world of work" , since Jesus already does this in scripture, one has only to read it ...

[figuer]

... Unless you consider the possibility that this reality is not real to God...Your god concept is quite nonsensical and useless, from a theological perspective...although it works as a psychological tool to give you comfort and security.

[DancesWithCoffeeCups]

How does your particular flavor of nonsense differ? So far from what I've read from your postings I can't see that it does.

:)

All creeds that I know of are inconsistent with scripture [even those that say that they are based upon it!] ... so I do not have a fixed creed ...

This seems a good idea, not only for avoiding inconsistency of belief, but because God promises [in scripture] to teach everyone Himself eventually , so it is worth waiting for , if one believes in Love and the God of Love...

I'm a human and therefore I experience love. There is no credible evidence for the existence of any of the claimed gods. Then again, I have no need for a god. I'm quite capable of taking care of myself. You, of course, are free to consult a 2000 year old book of myth if that's what makes you happy.

[ohmi]

I'm a human and therefore I experience love. There is no credible evidence for the existence of any of the claimed gods.


:)

Love is the credible evidence Jesus offered as showing us his god, a god committed to causing all people eventually to love one another and so live happily ... a better system than the 'god' of money which divides men and brings such misery to so many ...

Then again, I have no need for a god.

Everyone reveres something the most, that is your 'god'..

I'm quite capable of taking care of myself.

Until perhaps this civilisation fails , as all have done ?

You, of course, are free to consult a 2000 year old book of myth if that's what makes you happy.

Actually it makes me sad , but I still feel free to consult the works of prophets and saints because they were seemingly more loving than I and make many good points about life ,besides making prophesies about their future in which we live... and discussing the spirit about which few can give information... so perhaps 'myth' is an unfair designation , despite that there are deep allegorical truths in many myths, since you have not proved, nor can, that these are all myths ...

[ohmi]

Your god concept is quite nonsensical and useless, from a theological perspective...although it works as a psychological tool to give you comfort and security.

:)

Theology is nonsensical from a scriptural point of view, one cannot study God !

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

... and the beliefs I find in scripture do not comfort me at all, they make me sad about the inanity of mankind , that men want to Love and be Loved, but do exactly the opposite most of the time [and say that is 'practical']

God does offer peace within though , but that does not come from me, but simply arrived from Him one day [unexpectedly]

[DancesWithCoffeeCups]

Love is the credible evidence Jesus offered as showing us his god, a god committed to causing all people eventually to love one another and so live happily ... a better system than the 'god' of money which divides men and brings such misery to so many ...

Love is a human emotion. Nothing more. No god(s) required. I don't recall reading in the bible that eventually all people would love one another. It sounds nice but goes against human nature. We're a complicated lot with plenty of room for improvement. Some people take advantage of their lives to become better people and some do not. I'm also not aware that money is anything other than money. It can be used or abused just like anything else.

Everyone reveres something the most, that is your 'god'..

I do not have a god. I do not "revere something the most". The love I have for my family and friends as well as the love I experience from them is very important to me. I don't have or need god(s) to experience that love. Your understanding of human nature appears to be somewhat limited.

Until perhaps this civilisation fails , as all have done ?

I'll be long dead when this country crumbles. Having chosen the lifestyle that I have I'm in a much better position to feed and take care of myself than most in my country. If the process of collapse happens to speed up I'm sure I'll do just fine taking care of myself and my family.

Actually it makes me sad , but I still feel free to consult the works of prophets and saints because they were seemingly more loving than I and make many good points about life ,besides making prophesies about their future in which we live...

Wisdom is wisdom regardless of the source. I prefer the love, wisdom, knowledge and experience of real live human beings. No prophecy has ever come true regardless of the apologetics employed to "prove" them. If you prefer sadness, that too is your choice.

and discussing the spirit about which few can give information...

You should change that to "no one can give information" as there has been no evidence to support the existence of "the spirit".

so perhaps 'myth' is an unfair designation , despite that there are deep allegorical truths in many myths, since you have not proved, nor can, that these are all myths ...

I always call a spade a spade. Christianity was constructed using the myths that came before it. There are no god(s) and the profound lack of evidence for any of the god(s) is sufficient for me to come to that conclusion. The bible is in some cases historically inaccurate, archaeologically inaccurate and contains hundreds of inconsistencies. I myself prefer more current knowledge and real people when it comes to getting to the truth.

[figuer]

Theology is nonsensical from a scriptural point of view, one cannot study GodI don't see why not....and I couldn't care less what your "scripture" says .

[Gawen]

The word "gullible" isn't even a word. It's not in any dictionary, just so you know.

:)

imho ... get a better dictionary ... like this one (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=gullible)

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=gullible

HAH!!! you fell for it!! You gullible person you...*laffin*

[Gawen]

This would imply, as there is no time and God is timeless, that God would not know joy, or bliss or anger. Without emotions there would be no motivation. God essentially is nothing but a mass of...what...goo?


:)

Well it's usually called 'spirit' , but without space and time , formless , whole and integrated , I suppose you might mistake it for 'goo' ... dunno >:D< What a unique set of logic you use to qualify your god. Your god is nothing more than a formless, energy-less, massless, invisible nothingness.

That is the point, God has no time , He knows time only through His creation, us ... but to Him it is complete , all the way to the end of time , and all known , no blindness to the future as most of us have...

So God does not have to have His own 'time' at all , and He does not have to be part of this world to control it completely ...Either, time exists eternally or it came into being at the start of our universe (or even before the universe but doesn'tt matter for this argument). If time does exist eternally, it was not created by god. In this case, god isn't the creator of everything, so it follows that the a creator-of-all type God does not exist.

Your argument ignores the attribute of God that says he is outside of time. He did not have to be in time to create time. You really should define your terms when making an argument, i.e. "time" in this one. You need to define your term "create", and try to do so without invoking temporaility.

If we say something is caused, we presuppose the existence of time. 'A' can cause 'B' when and only when when time is already there. Therefore, for God to cause the time to exist, he must have created time before there was time. This is absurd. So it is not the case that time was caused. The beginning of time must be uncaused.

So there is no god that could have caused the time to exist. In this case, god isn't the creator of everything, so it follows that the a creator-of-all-god does not exist. Therefore, there is no christian god.

This is a strong argument for the nonexistence of (the Christian/Creator of everything) god. Look up Dragomb's Paradox.

John 16:13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: ...: and He will shew you things to come.Your Bible will lend you no help in this case. As shown countless times, you will read out of it what floats your argument.

It is in your definition of God that he does things without time. He also does things with time AFTER creation. A definition does not make it a reality. What things does God do without time? Name one.

[ohmi]

Love is a human emotion. Nothing more. No god(s) required.


:)

An 'emotion' of all human beings is something which moves all humans, that is something worthy of observation as a common element of peple who are so very different ... most interestingly too although all men respect Love as being right [one cannot see it as wrong] , yet men want to Love and be Loved, but do not mostly do this that they want to do so deeply...

Again if [and when] men loved then they would find their heart's desire, but still they do not do so, but accept false arguments for continuing unhlovingness that makes so many unhappy ... truly a paradox inside almost all men, one which leaves men unsatisfied and in conflict for the time being

I don't recall reading in the bible that eventually all people would love one another.

look again then :) :-

Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

The whole creation is thus prophesied to accept Jesus as Lord, thus to obey him as lord in his command to Love...


It sounds nice but goes against human nature.

Look more closely at human nature, Psychology reveals that all men desire most deeply to Love and be Loved, they just don't do what they want at this time, very foolish, but they call it 'practical necessity' in this world made evil by their 'practicality' that makes so many deeply unhappy ... men simply got it wrong, if men Love then they become happy, if and when all men Love then the world is a much better place for everyone, Love is the practical and only way to be happy... our hearts know it, most minds foolishly deny it for sake of greed, lust, envy, etc tings which do not make men happy long-term , but like addiction , can cover up the desire to Love with desire for transient pleasure which does not satisfy , just keeps men coming back for what is emptiness ...

We're a complicated lot with plenty of room for improvement. Some people take advantage of their lives to become better people and some do not. I'm also not aware that money is anything other than money. It can be used or abused just like anything else.

Money is institutionally abused by almost all men in this modern world :-
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=%22money+as+debt%22&total=25&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I do not have a god. I do not "revere something the most".

Simply list all the things that you respect/revere and find the one you respect most, that is your 'god' ...

I'll be long dead when this country crumbles. Having chosen the lifestyle that I have I'm in a much better position to feed and take care of myself than most in my country. If the process of collapse happens to speed up I'm sure I'll do just fine taking care of myself and my family.

When the civilisation fails [and the depression in USA will eb here by next year] the anger of men that their life's savings have 'disappeared' as banks close , they lose their jobs, their families go hungry, leads to anarchy, theft, fighting over what is left ... very few will survive and those few will start again with nothing , building small communities , living as peasants ... hoefully they will have learned to love everyone this time, to share, to trat men as equals, else it will all go wrong eyt again... senseless, inane , as our societies today...

Wisdom is wisdom regardless of the source. I prefer the love, wisdom, knowledge and experience of real live human beings. No prophecy has ever come true regardless of the apologetics employed to "prove" them. If you prefer sadness, that too is your choice.

I do not prefer sadness, it is simply the consequence of the inane absence of Love in most people despite that they actually all want to love and be Loved [and it would work if they did!]

You should change that to "no one can give information" as there has been no evidence to support the existence of "the spirit".

I have given the evidence , I remember the wholeness of the spirit from which my consciousbness was torn to become apparently a self ... you might even recall it yourself in time ... but it matters not what anyone is given to believe for now ...

so perhaps 'myth' is an unfair designation , despite that there are deep allegorical truths in many myths, since you have not proved, nor can, that these are all myths ...I always call a spade a spade. Christianity was constructed using the myths that came before it.

That is an unproven theory , which is of little use except to prop up the denial of people's desire to Love ... but you did not bother to notice that the scripture denies all creeds of modern 'christianity' and even prophesies this vast apostasy we see today ... that came from no myth and is strong evidence for the areligious God of scripture

There are no god(s) and the profound lack of evidence for any of the god(s) is sufficient for me to come to that conclusion.

That is not evidence at all, since the God of scripture does not reveal Himself at this time to the many ... your 'evidence' is also consistent with God, it shows nothing either way ... is useless except to reject religion

The bible is in some cases historically inaccurate, archaeologically inaccurate and contains hundreds of inconsistencies. I myself prefer more current knowledge and real people when it comes to getting to the truth.

My experience is that one richly gains knowledge by examining what others see as inconsistencies [which turn out to be misunderstandings, mistranslations, etc]

As for 'current knowledge' , knowledge is almost all relative and thus of no use whatever if its conditions are not met , whereas i is an absolute among humans that they cannot even conceive that Love could be wrong... a useful basis for one's thoughts about life, as Jesus said ....

[ohmi]

:)

imho ... get a better dictionary ... like this one (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=gullible)

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=gullible

HAH!!! you fell for it!! You gullible person you...*laffin*

LOLOL :notworthy:

[Jedi Mind Trick]

What a unique set of logic you use to qualify your god. Your god is nothing more than a formless, energy-less, massless, invisible nothingness.
I think that's the idea... God is nothing, as in no-thing. :)

[DancesWithCoffeeCups]

An 'emotion' of all human beings is something which moves all humans, that is something worthy of observation as a common element of peple who are so very different ... most interestingly too although all men respect Love as being right [one cannot see it as wrong] , yet men want to Love and be Loved, but do not mostly do this that they want to do so deeply...

It appears that you know little of human nature. The vast majority of human beings, both men and women, are capable of loving. Love isn't right or wrong. It's a human emotion. Emotions aren't right or wrong. They just are. Feelings aren't facts, however. They pass. If one acts on their feelings and harms another human it is then that we assign a "right" or "wrong" to the action. We assign it to the action. Not the feeling. We have dozens, if not hundreds of emotions available to us. That human beings have emotions is something that the vast majority of human beings have in common. There are exceptions of course, but they are rare. The people in my life are all capable of loving and being loved. It's unfortunate that isn't the case for you. Perhaps you might want to consider choosing friends who are capable of experiencing it. I only speak for myself and my experiences of course. I can generalize based on my observations of others, but it appears that your experiences and mine are completely different. Your view of the world and the human beings in it appears rather grim. I'm glad we don't live in the same world.

Again if [and when] men loved then they would find their heart's desire, but still they do not do so, but accept false arguments for continuing unhlovingness that makes so many unhappy ... truly a paradox inside almost all men, one which leaves men unsatisfied and in conflict for the time being

You live in a world that is foreign to me. My friends and family and myself included all live contented lives. Perhaps you should try incorporating some women into your life, maybe they aren't as unhappy as the men you constantly discuss. I myself have never heard an argument for continuing "unlovingness". Though to be quite honest, I've never heard the word before. It's not an english word.

I don't recall reading in the bible that eventually all people would love one another.

look again then

Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

The whole creation is thus prophesied to accept Jesus as Lord, thus to obey him as lord in his command to Love...

Bowing down to some creature is not my idea of love. Worship is not love.
I don't love because someone "commands" me to love. That isn't love. I certainly don't love creatures that I've never met. That's just crazy talk.

Look more closely at human nature, Psychology reveals that all men desire most deeply to Love and be Loved, they just don't do what they want at this time, very foolish, but they call it 'practical necessity' in this world made evil by their 'practicality' that makes so many deeply unhappy ... men simply got it wrong, if men Love then they become happy, if and when all men Love then the world is a much better place for everyone, Love is the practical and only way to be happy... our hearts know it, most minds foolishly deny it for sake of greed, lust, envy, etc tings which do not make men happy long-term , but like addiction , can cover up the desire to Love with desire for transient pleasure which does not satisfy , just keeps men coming back for what is emptiness ...

We simply don't live in the same worlds. The reality of my world is that I interact with other human beings. Human beings that are not only capable of loving and being loved, but are also capable of experiencing all other human emotions. Apparently this is something that doesn't appeal to you, which is certainly fine. I myself find all human emotions to be both frustrating and endearing, both good and bad, and above all else, infinitely interesting. You appear to have an outlook that is very common among certain groups of theists. You despise being human. Again, not my reality. It's your choice of course, to approach life in this manner. I myself find nothing appealing about it.

Money is institutionally abused by almost all men in this modern world :-
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=%22money+as+debt%22&total=25&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


I'm not interested in video's or links. I prefer one on one discussion here at IIDB. Money can be used to do good things (Gates, Buffet, etc.,) and bad things. I have no problem with money myself. I earn it, it feeds me and it allows me to help others who need it more than I do. You're free to do without it and encourage others to do the same if that's what moves you and makes you happy.

Simply list all the things that you respect/revere and find the one you respect most, that is your 'god' ...

I've already said that I don't "respect/revere" anything "the most". I've also already stated that I have found no credible evidence for the existence of gods. You have yet to provide any as far as I can tell.

When the civilisation fails [and the depression in USA will eb here by next year] the anger of men that their life's savings have 'disappeared' as banks close , they lose their jobs, their families go hungry, leads to anarchy, theft, fighting over what is left ... very few will survive and those few will start again with nothing , building small communities , living as peasants ... hoefully they will have learned to love everyone this time, to share, to trat men as equals, else it will all go wrong eyt again... senseless, inane , as our societies today...

No one knows what the future holds, yourself included.

I do not prefer sadness, it is simply the consequence of the inane absence of Love in most people despite that they actually all want to love and be Loved [and it would work if they did!]

It would be a much more fruitful discussion for me if you were to actually talk about yourself and your own feelings and experiences rather than focusing on other people. You've demonstrated that you know little about other people when you claim that there's an "absence of love". Apparently you don't know where to look for it. I see it all around me. That's probably why our worlds are diametrically opposed. Still, the choice to be sad is your choice. You can see the glass as half full or half empty. In my experience I have found that it's not what happens to me, but how I handle it, that determines my emotional well-being. It works well for me and it seems to work well for the other people in my life who use that same practical philosophy.

I have given the evidence , I remember the wholeness of the spirit from which my consciousbness was torn to become apparently a self ... you might even recall it yourself in time ... but it matters not what anyone is given to believe for now ...

I'm fairly certain that others have mentioned that anecdotal evidence isn't credible evidence. It matters to me what others believe only when their beliefs interfere with my freedom to believe as I choose or when their beliefs threaten my family, friends, or me.

That is an unproven theory , which is of little use except to prop up the denial of people's desire to Love ... but you did not bother to notice that the scripture denies all creeds of modern 'christianity' and even prophesies this vast apostasy we see today ... that came from no myth and is strong evidence for the areligious God of scripture

Perhaps if you spend some time studying comparative religion or the origins of the bible itself you'll come to understand that it's just an old book. It's certainly not evidence for the existence of any god. Or perhaps you won't. You keep going on about love but it appears to me that you know nothing about love. That's too bad. It's a beautiful thing.

That is not evidence at all, since the God of scripture does not reveal Himself at this time to the many ... your 'evidence' is also consistent with God, it shows nothing either way ... is useless except to reject religion

I don't think it's useless at all to reject religion. In fact, I'd say that it's probably one of the most freeing things I've done in my lifetime. I've accomplished so much more not being tied to the christian doctrine which requires one to hate themselves and to worship a monster-god. I think my moral compass was vastly improved once I jettisoned the fairy tale.

My experience is that one richly gains knowledge by examining what others see as inconsistencies [which turn out to be misunderstandings, mistranslations, etc]

We're all free to get our "knowledge" from whatever source proves practical. I'll stick with reality and the observation of the people and the world around me. It's practical and it works! That's what counts for me.

As for 'current knowledge' , knowledge is almost all relative and thus of no use whatever if its conditions are not met , whereas i is an absolute among humans that they cannot even conceive that Love could be wrong... a useful basis for one's thoughts about life, as Jesus said ....

You're right. I would never consider love to be wrong. I explained why above.

[ohmi]

[quote=ohmi;5354616]

:)

Well it's usually called 'spirit' , but without space and time , formless , whole and integrated , I suppose you might mistake it for 'goo' ... dunno >:D< What a unique set of logic you use to qualify your god. Your god is nothing more than a formless, energy-less, massless, invisible nothingness.

One can imagine a virtual character within a virtual reality program on a computer saying the same thing just as unseeingly about its creator, the programmer ...

Either, time exists eternally or it came into being at the start of our universe (or even before the universe but doesn't matter for this argument). If time does exist eternally, it was not created by god. In this case, god isn't the creator of everything, so it follows that the a creator-of-all type God does not exist.

eah, but we know that the universe IS 'space-time' that time is created with the universe, is integral to it, and ends with the universe ... time is thus finite ...not infinite ... time was created then , is part of creation.

Your argument ignores the attribute of God that says he is outside of time. He did not have to be in time to create time. You really should define your terms when making an argument, i.e. "time" in this one. You need to define your term "create", and try to do so without invoking temporaility.

God is time-less, beyond time and space, creator of space and time.

If we say something is caused, we presuppose the existence of time. 'A' can cause 'B' when and only when when time is already there. Therefore, for God to cause the time to exist, he must have created time before there was time. This is absurd. So it is not the case that time was caused. The beginning of time must be uncaused.

Rather it is our words that are inadequate to talk about God, we can only use them in 'poetic' manner about time-less God since many imply time ...

What things does God do without time? Name one.

As you pointed out , one cannot 'DO' anything outside time... God is changeless

[Gawen]

You're not getting it ohmi. Do a search at this site for Draygomb's Paradox or an online search.

[Sapho]

Two things ohmi, could you define love please, it seems that you are using it in a way that makes me think we are talking about diferent things?

Also, Im glad that you reversed imho, because your opinons are the opposite of humble, what with your detailed knowledge of god and all.

[steamer]

[QUOTE=Half-Life;5352274]
That still small voice is you and it is her...

She is the eggman? She is the walrus? Koo Koo Ka Choo?

[ohmi]

You're not getting it ohmi. Do a search at this site for Draygomb's Paradox or an online search.

On the contrary, you are not getting it that one can create such paradoxes simply by using words in contexts where they do not apply [as atheists are prone to do due to their worship of (incomplete) reason]

No matter what the religious say, God is NOT a person , not a man [despite taht it is convenient to use the pronoun 'He' to distinguish comments about God] ... God is NOT subject to space or time , so our language structure using models in space and time is often inappropriate, our words pont to things in space and time which do not apply to God...

Thus we [ab]use our words in 'poetic' fashion to apply to God in attempt to understand something of the spirit ... it is thus pointless to approach the words in attempt to misunderstand them by tearing them apart with logic , else one simply discovers that literally applied they do no apply to God , something one could have known before one bothered ...

Ideally then we should have separate words relating to God else we shall continue to have these meaningless discussions generated simply by the necessary usage of words poetically which the foolish treat as literal ...

EXAMPLE
If we say that God 'caused' something then it is to be understood that timeless beng cannot cause anything but that we might see it as cause from our perspective in tme ... to god it is simply what is seen in the fixed object , space-time, our so-called universe ... nothing changed for God, only we see change , for now anyway :)

[ohmi]

[quote=Jedi Mind Trick;5352276]

She is the eggman? She is the walrus? Koo Koo Ka Choo?

:)

Kookoo? :-

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/pics/glass21-small.gif (http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/pics/glass21.gif)
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/pics/glass22-small.gif (http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/pics/glass22.gif)
"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

[ohmi]

Two things ohmi, could you define love please, it seems that you are using it in a way that makes me think we are talking about diferent things?


Hiya, :)

Do you then perhaps think that you can define Love ?

Love is what is deepest in the heart [desire] of every being ... many have tried to turn it into a religious creed and all have failed and become hypocrites in the process... Jesus contented himself with saying what it is NOT, with saying some of the many things which men confuse with Love , but showed us Love by his actions and informed men [though few hear him] that without all truth [from God] men cannot Love [interestingly Spinoza said the same thing in exposing the inability of the will to be independent ('free') but noting that men will be free [fro the burden of error]when they no longer make mistakes by having all truth

1Cor 13:4 [Rotherham] ¶ Love, is patient, is gracious. Love, is not envious, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Acteth not unbecomingly, seeketh not her own things, is not easily provoked, imputeth not that which is base,
6 Rejoiceth not over unrighteousness, but rejoiceth in sympathy with truth,—
7 All things, covereth, all things, believeth, all things, hopeth, all things, endureth.
8 ¶ Love, at no time, faileth;—but, whether prophesyings, they shall be done away, whether tongues, they shall cease, whether gaining knowledge, it shall be done away;
9 For, in part, are we gaining knowledge, and, in part, are we prophesying,—
10 But, as soon as that which is complete is come, that which is in part, shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to prefer as child, to reason as a child: now I have become a man, I have laid aside the things of the child!
12 For we see, as yet, through a dim window, obscurely, but, then, face to face: as yet, I gain knowledge, in part, but, then, shall I fully know, even as I was also fully known.



Also, Im glad that you reversed imho, because your opinons are the opposite of humble, what with your detailed knowledge of god and all.

You are very observant, the first to remark on noticing that in fact... I am still waiting and asking God to break me :-

Luke 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

[Gawen]

On the contrary, you are not getting it that one can create such paradoxes simply by using words in contexts where they do not apply [as atheists are prone to do due to their worship of (incomplete) reason] Then what good is a God born of paradox's?

No matter what the religious say, God is NOT a person , not a man [despite taht it is convenient to use the pronoun 'He' to distinguish comments about God] ... God is NOT subject to space or time , so our language structure using models in space and time is often inappropriate, our words pont to things in space and time which do not apply to God...Then God cannot know us, and we cannot know It.

Thus we [ab]use our words in 'poetic' fashion to apply to God in attempt to understand something of the spirit ... it is thus pointless to approach the words in attempt to misunderstand them by tearing them apart with logic , else one simply discovers that literally applied they do no apply to God , something one could have known before one bothered ...Then, if by our logic, we cannot know God, what use is it?

Ideally then we should have separate words relating to God else we shall continue to have these meaningless discussions generated simply by the necessary usage of words poetically which the foolish treat as literal ...By this you're foolish and literal as well. You are talking about something a concrete language that you say cannot be talked about in a language. See the discrepancy here? All you can say is "I believe God exists outside time and logic" and that's all you can say. Everything else is meaningless, including your example below.

EXAMPLE
If we say that God 'caused' something then it is to be understood that timeless beng cannot cause anything but that we might see it as cause from our perspective in tme ... to god it is simply what is seen in the fixed object , space-time, our so-called universe ... nothing changed for God, only we see change , for now anyway :)[/QUOTE]

[ohmi]

Then what good is a God born of paradox's?

God is not born at all... the paradox you did not unravel is simply caused by your belief that words must mean something when applied to time-less spirit when they were created only from experience of apparent time [not even our best current understanding of the nature of time] ... look again, take the trouble to unravel the paradox...

Then God cannot know us, and we cannot know It.
Then, if by our logic, we cannot know God, what use is it?

:)

Consider the analogy of the relationship between a programmer and a character he creates in a computer virtual reality ... the programmer controls how much or how little the character 'understands' about him , yet the programmer knows the character completely, and controls him as much as the programmer wants to ... God undertakes to reveal Himself to all men in due course, but to only a few [about one in a million] for now , that is up to Him, not us ...

[quote]Ideally then we should have separate words relating to God else we shall continue to have these meaningless discussions generated simply by the necessary usage of words poetically which the foolish treat as literal ...By this you're foolish and literal as well. You are talking about something a concrete language that you say cannot be talked about in a language.

I have no problem using words 'poetically' , it is only you who thinks unprovably and falsely that language is concrete [when it is not even complete, nor could be]

See the discrepancy here? All you can say is "I believe God exists outside time and logic" and that's all you can say. Everything else is meaningless

The constraint is not logic, however blunt a tool that is, but the boundary of timelessness beyond which language based upon time obviously cannot apply ... it is a simple error to apply words from one 'realm' to another where they have not been shown to apply [and even logically cannot apply]

My belief in the God of Love is because I remember where I came from at the moment of first conciousness, and recognise the desire to Love and be Loved in all men that most men just do not use as their way of life yet, [but clearly will once this way of life fails and hurts them, kills them en masse].

[Sapho]

Two things ohmi, could you define love please, it seems that you are using it in a way that makes me think we are talking about diferent things?


Hiya, :)

Do you then perhaps think that you can define Love ?

Love is what is deepest in the heart [desire] of every being ... many have tried to turn it into a religious creed and all have failed and become hypocrites in the process... Jesus contented himself with saying what it is NOT, with saying some of the many things which men confuse with Love , but showed us Love by his actions and informed men [though few hear him] that without all truth [from God] men cannot Love [interestingly Spinoza said the same thing in exposing the inability of the will to be independent ('free') but noting that men will be free [fro the burden of error]when they no longer make mistakes by having all truth

1Cor 13:4 [Rotherham] ¶ Love, is patient, is gracious. Love, is not envious, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Acteth not unbecomingly, seeketh not her own things, is not easily provoked, imputeth not that which is base,
6 Rejoiceth not over unrighteousness, but rejoiceth in sympathy with truth,—
7 All things, covereth, all things, believeth, all things, hopeth, all things, endureth.
8 ¶ Love, at no time, faileth;—but, whether prophesyings, they shall be done away, whether tongues, they shall cease, whether gaining knowledge, it shall be done away;
9 For, in part, are we gaining knowledge, and, in part, are we prophesying,—
10 But, as soon as that which is complete is come, that which is in part, shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to prefer as child, to reason as a child: now I have become a man, I have laid aside the things of the child!
12 For we see, as yet, through a dim window, obscurely, but, then, face to face: as yet, I gain knowledge, in part, but, then, shall I fully know, even as I was also fully known.
The bible quotes dont really help, as most do not seem to be speaking of love at all. Those that do are wrong imho
love is attachment, for your partner and children, for your friends and community, and that attachment can be wider and include your country, and sometimes the whole of humanity, though this is rare and seems to come at the price of a more personal attachment. Love is also usually mixed with other emotions, such as lust, fear, and even hate. Love by itself is probably a myth.


Also, Im glad that you reversed imho, because your opinons are the opposite of humble, what with your detailed knowledge of god and all.

You are very observant, the first to remark on noticing that in fact... I am still waiting and asking God to break me :-

Luke 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

you will have to break yourself, if thats what you desire.

[figuer]

My belief in the God of Love is because I remember where I came from at the moment of first conciousness, and recognise the desire to Love and be Loved in all men...I also remember the moment of first consciousness...I desired an explanation for my being, answers regarding the source of my knowledge (language, social skills etc)....so..should I believe then in the God of Explanations?

I also desired to love and be loved by all men... :devil1:

[ohmi]

[quote=Sapho;5357581] Love by itself is probably a myth.
[quote]

:)

perhaps the words of one of the very few [one in a million saints of God] who perfected love show that it is no myth, just rare at this time in God's plan...

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

[ohmi]

...

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Well, I’ve been doing some more reading from Michael Sharp and he does indeed think that God (including us/all things) got bored. And he does think that this was a limit on God’s (our) state of bliss. He thinks God is limited. I even talke with one of his students and he said that Michael teaches that God makes mistakes...

The way he explains it is that consciousness came from the void and became self aware. This self awareness became boredom and consciousness then sought new experiences.

He presents this idea in THIS (http://www.sociology.org/content/2007/thedeathofnewton.pdf) article.

So Ohmi, Michael is talking about consciousness after it emerged from the No-thing-ness. He calls the void (no-thing-ness) from which consciousness emerged the "Nuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuit_%28mythology%29)." This is an Egyptian goddess from whom all things emerge. So, I take it from this that he believes that God/Consciousness/Us came from a womb-like nothingness into self awareness. So to him, “God” is subject to time from the moment of consciousness, or so I suppose this to be his point.

His view is that at first, after the void, we were a self aware Monad, and then a triad, and then it cascaded fractal-fashion from there into the myriad of consciousnesses that exist today.

For his theory, all things begin with consciousness, and I gather that he believes that consciousness is time bound. This would not fall afoul of Draygomb’s Paradox, IMV, because God is subject to time and consciousness emerged out of an ineffable nothingness, i.e. was not created but is emergent. Although I suppose emergence would require time. But this is sort of like the tree falling without anyone to hear it paradox; would there be time if there is no consciousness, i.e. pre emergence? Michael doesn’t like the idea of anything being ineffable, but he gives no explanation for the nothingness, he only cryptically calls it the “Nuit”.

So he disagrees with you, Ohmi.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

My belief in the God of Love is because I remember where I came from at the moment of first conciousness, and recognise the desire to Love and be Loved in all men that most men just do not use as their way of life yet, [but clearly will once this way of life fails and hurts them, kills them en masse].
You remember your first moment of consciousness? Was this consciousness something prior to this incarnation? Was it discarnate?

Could you, or, have you considered that perhaps you are having memory of womb-consciousness, prior to your physical birth?

[ohmi]

You remember your first moment of consciousness?


Yes.

Was this consciousness something prior to this incarnation? Was it discarnate?

No.


Could you, or, have you considered that perhaps you are having memory of womb-consciousness, prior to your physical birth?

there is no significance whatsoever to whether it was before birth or not... birth bears no relation to onset of consciousness.

[ohmi]

Well, I’ve been doing some more reading from Michael Sharp and he does indeed think that God (including us/all things) got bored. And he does think that this was a limit on God’s (our) state of bliss. He thinks God is limited. I even talke with one of his students and he said that Michael teaches that God makes mistakes...

The way he explains it is that consciousness came from the void and became self aware. This self awareness became boredom and consciousness then sought new experiences.

He presents this idea in THIS (http://www.sociology.org/content/2007/thedeathofnewton.pdf) article.

So Ohmi, Michael is talking about consciousness after it emerged from the No-thing-ness. He calls the void (no-thing-ness) from which consciousness emerged the "Nuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuit_%28mythology%29)." This is an Egyptian goddess from whom all things emerge. So, I take it from this that he believes that God/Consciousness/Us came from a womb-like nothingness into self awareness. So to him, “God” is subject to time from the moment of consciousness, or so I suppose this to be his point.

His view is that at first, after the void, we were a self aware Monad, and then a triad, and then it cascaded fractal-fashion from there into the myriad of consciousnesses that exist today.

For his theory, all things begin with consciousness, and I gather that he believes that consciousness is time bound. This would not fall afoul of Draygomb’s Paradox, IMV, because God is subject to time and consciousness emerged out of an ineffable nothingness, i.e. was not created but is emergent. Although I suppose emergence would require time. But this is sort of like the tree falling without anyone to hear it paradox; would there be time if there is no consciousness, i.e. pre emergence? Michael doesn’t like the idea of anything being ineffable, but he gives no explanation for the nothingness, he only cryptically calls it the “Nuit”.

So he disagrees with you, Ohmi.

I find the very idea of creation of the creator to be a real contradiction [unlike the so-called 'paradox' you mention which is just abuse of words]

If the void is no-thing then how can it be a womb [a thing] or a goddess ?

We know that time is finite and is created [space-time-matter is an integrated entity that had a beginning ] , thus consciousness, being time-dependent, is created too , whereas the creator is independent of time, 'outside' time, 'beyond' time, in order to create it, thus not 'conscious' in the sense we understand the word.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Let’s face facts ohmi, neither you or I really know. Don't ask me to defend Michael's views because I am only exploring them to see if they are robust, which I am finding that they are not. How do you know that God is beyond time? God has consciousness, yes? We agree that consciousness is time dependent, as per Draygomb's Paradox, which you have not debunked. Are you saying God is something other than consciousness? Well then, what is that?

[ohmi]

Let’s face facts ohmi, neither you or I really know.


One goes with what one has, but Love engenders a certain trust because it is undeniably right and is what everyone wants [despite what they actually do]

Don't ask me to defend Michael's views because I am only exploring them to see if they are robust, which I am finding that they are not.

They don't even seem to make sense to me , but I don't care what others choose to believe....

How do you know that God is beyond time?

Because He created the universe which we call space-time , so He created time, so He must be beyond time ...

God has consciousness, yes?

I think not, because that would mean He was time-dependent, and the creator of time cannot be ..

We agree that consciousness is time dependent, as per Draygomb's Paradox, which you have not debunked.

Well I did actually ...

Are you saying God is something other than consciousness? Well then, what is that?

Yes...God doesn't have the drudgery of having to spend time thinking or considering , He doesn't have to spend time on anything ... timeless spirit just ain't like physical human beings at all ...

Jesus said that we can come to know God once we give up unlovingness , but that most people won't do that yet , not in this life

John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Let’s face facts ohmi, neither you or I really know.


One goes with what one has, but Love engenders a certain trust because it is undeniably right and is what everyone wants [despite what they actually do]
I'm not sure that you are more correct than Michael Sharp just because you use the word "love."



They don't even seem to make sense to me , but I don't care what others choose to believe....I do, I like to keep an open mind to other's ideas, even yours. His idea makes sense to him, in fact he thinks his idea is quite logical.



Because He created the universe which we call space-time , so He created time, so He must be beyond time ...According to Michael's logic, or what I gather from it, this is a false assumption of yours.



I think not, because that would mean He was time-dependent, and the creator of time cannot be .. Why not? Or what I mean is who says he created time? From what I can gather of Michael's idea time is an emergent phenomena of consciousness or rather, with consciousness. The two are linked, so when consciousness (God) emerged from the void so did time. Or so I surmise from Michaels writings though he doesn't actually say this.



Well I did actually ...
No, you didn't. See how easy it was for me to say that?

Are you saying God is something other than consciousness? Well then, what is that?

Yes...God doesn't have the drudgery of having to spend time thinking or considering , He doesn't have to spend time on anything ... timeless spirit just ain't like physical human beings at all ...
Then what is it? You're not helping me understand here because what you said gives me an image of god that is similar to Patrick Starfish's drooling "duh" face on Spongebob Squarepants.

If God is not or does not have conciousness then what is he? And if he has conciousness then he must be subject to time as per Draygomb's Paradox.

[ohmi]

Look at space-time from inside and one sees creation and the end of the universe.
But look at it from outside and creation is no longer an act , just one end of a fixed object [the whole of space-time]

Thus to God outside time there is no act of creation, there is no paradox at all.

Nor can God be conscious or consciousness , since He is outside [independent of] time .

[Tom Sawyer]

Look at space-time from inside and one sees creation and the end of the universe.
But look at it from outside and creation is no longer an act , just one end of a fixed object [the whole of space-time]

Thus to God outside time there is no act of creation, there is no paradox at all.

Nor can God be conscious or consciousness , since He is outside [independent of] time .

No, God is not outside of time.

We are now tied one-one in baseless assertions that we made up without having any legitimate reason to support them.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Look at space-time from inside and one sees creation and the end of the universe.
But look at it from outside and creation is no longer an act , just one end of a fixed object [the whole of space-time]

Thus to God outside time there is no act of creation, there is no paradox at all.

Nor can God be conscious or consciousness , since He is outside [independent of] time .These are just pronouncements they prove nothing. Not saying you are wrong, but just what does "one end of a fixed object" actually mean? Help me out here.

Thus to God outside time there is no act of creation, there is no paradox at allYou just restated the paradox "outside of time there is no act of creation".

[ohmi]

Look at space-time from inside and one sees creation and the end of the universe.
But look at it from outside and creation is no longer an act , just one end of a fixed object [the whole of space-time]

Thus to God outside time there is no act of creation, there is no paradox at all.

Nor can God be conscious or consciousness , since He is outside [independent of] time .These are just pronouncements they prove nothing. Not saying you are wrong, but just what does "one end of a fixed object" actually mean? Help me out here.


Imagine a 3D holographic record of the universe taken every microsecond, and the whole series stacked up in some vast library so that one could see any moment of time at will ... that gives you some idea of what all of space-time looks like to God , complete, stationary , known ... then creation is just one slide at the far end of the library, but to God it ain't creation, it is just another static slide ... thus the creation looks different to us from inside time than it looks from outside, there is no act of creation as far as god is concerned, it just looks that way to us

Thus to God outside time there is no act of creation, there is no paradox at allYou just restated the paradox "outside of time there is no act of creation".

Well, no I did not... I simply pointed out that there are no 'acts' by God , and creation looks like just one end of a fixed object to him, not an act at all ,because He cannot act since He is timless ...

[ohmi]

Look at space-time from inside and one sees creation and the end of the universe.
But look at it from outside and creation is no longer an act , just one end of a fixed object [the whole of space-time]

Thus to God outside time there is no act of creation, there is no paradox at all.

Nor can God be conscious or consciousness , since He is outside [independent of] time .

No, God is not outside of time.

We are now tied one-one in baseless assertions that we made up without having any legitimate reason to support them.

Hi, :)

You are mistaken my friend, I have explained the basis of my current belief that God is timeless

[Joan of Bark]

God created reality for one reason and one reason only ... so he could watch great porn! After all, without beings to watch, porn can't possibly exist!

[ohmi]

God created reality for one reason and one reason only ... so he could watch great porn! After all, without beings to watch, porn can't possibly exist!

Isn't real sexual interaction better than watching bored 'pornstars' pretend?

Are not the endorphins [naturally generated drugs] released during sexual interaction not evolved there to cement a relationship for the purpose of facing the challenges of having to bring up children?

Is not sex [in animals and plants too, not just humans] about ensuring variation of genetic material in offspring for sake of the adaptability of species in the long-term

Is porn then not a short-sighted misunderstanding of life, and a focus on immediate transient pleasures instead of seeking the long term satisfaction/bliss of ceasing from unlovingness?

[Draconis]

If God is omniscient, he would have always known he was going to create a universe, and knows exactly what will go on within it down to the last silly detail, what everyone is feeling and thinking, etc. In that sense it seems rather pointless actually going through the motions of doing the job. I mean, its like writing a play for some marionettes,
with very detailed and precise details of how, why and what will happen, with photo-quality drawings of all the scenes, etc, then performing it for yourself and telling yourself the performance is somehow different from simply writing it down.

There just seems no point to our universe, other than being an accident. Why should there be?

[Tom Sawyer]

No, God is not outside of time.

We are now tied one-one in baseless assertions that we made up without having any legitimate reason to support them.

Hi, :)

You are mistaken my friend, I have explained the basis of my current belief that God is timeless

You did not explain anything. You asserted that God created space-time and is thus outside of space-time without backing that assertion up in any way. Explaining would involve including the backing-it-up part.

I will now assert that God did not create space-time and is not outside of it. We are still tied one-one and neither of us has provided any kind of basis for our position.

[ohmi]

Hi, :)

You are mistaken my friend, I have explained the basis of my current belief that God is timeless

You did not explain anything. You asserted that God created space-time and is thus outside of space-time without backing that assertion up in any way. Explaining would involve including the backing-it-up part.

I will now assert that God did not create space-time and is not outside of it. We are still tied one-one and neither of us has provided any kind of basis for our position.

There would be no need to create time if God were already within it ...thus He was and is not...

[ohmi]

If God is omniscient, he would have always known he was going to create a universe, and knows exactly what will go on within it down to the last silly detail, what everyone is feeling and thinking, etc. In that sense it seems rather pointless actually going through the motions of doing the job. I mean, its like writing a play for some marionettes,
with very detailed and precise details of how, why and what will happen, with photo-quality drawings of all the scenes, etc, then performing it for yourself and telling yourself the performance is somehow different from simply writing it down.

There just seems no point to our universe, other than being an accident. Why should there be?

There is no 'always' for God since he created time, cannot thus have been within it , is not within it...

Neither can God know time except through us - thus we have to suffer because God knows time , we then are His knowing, but projected into time, unlike God ...

The point of our universe, unreal to God, is thus God's knowing.

[hinduwoman]

I’ve been introduced to a heretical thought via a new author I’ve come across, Michael Sharp. He suggests that God, the original Monad, instantiated creation because despite God’s own eternal bliss, God got bored. God thought all thoughts, imagined all imaginings and got bored. God then decided to create other equals with limited perspectives in order to experience things that God previously only theorized about.

How does this set with skeptics and traditional theists?

According to one theory in Upanishads, yes.
Brahman looked round and saw he was alone and so he created the world. That is why men who are alone seek company.
It desired to perceive the universe from many aspects and hence the limited creatures.

Not really a radically new theory.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I have a correction to make. I've corresponded with Michael Sharp and he says that he teaches that consciousness always existed and that it is not time dependent. What he says emerged was self awareness. His view of time I'm not sure I understand so I wont repeat it here.

I think I disagree with him though...

[ohmi]

I have a correction to make. I've corresponded with Michael Sharp and he says that he teaches that consciousness always existed and that it is not time dependent. What he says emerged was self awareness. His view of time I'm not sure I understand so I wont repeat it here.

I think I disagree with him though...

:)

Consciousness in the sense that we know it is described as a 'stream' in time , it takes up time... so what is 'consciousness without time' ?

As usual the problem is that we don't have different words to use for time-less matters , but they are very different, distinct concepts...

else 'time-less consciousness' looks like an oxymoron, a paradox...

[Joan of Bark]

[quote=Joan of Bark;5364688]God created reality for one reason and one reason only ... so he could watch great porn! After all, without beings to watch, porn can't possibly exist!


Isn't real sexual interaction better than watching bored 'pornstars' pretend?



Not always. And how do you know they're bored? Are you a mind reader?



Are not the endorphins [naturally generated drugs] released during sexual interaction not evolved there to cement a relationship for the purpose of facing the challenges of having to bring up children?



Maybe. What's that got to do with a non-existent God?



Is not sex [in animals and plants too, not just humans] about ensuring variation of genetic material in offspring for sake of the adaptability of species in the long-term



Yes.




Is porn then not a short-sighted misunderstanding of life, and a focus on immediate transient pleasures instead of seeking the long term satisfaction/bliss of ceasing from unlovingness?



Nope. But if it doesn't do anything for you ... hey, don't watch it.

... and I think you need to lighten up when you read a clearly facetious post.