Argument From Infinity

Uriah,

What's up with the :facepalm:?

Facepalm: To hit one's own forehead with your hand/palm, and drag it down one's face. Most often done in frustration or agitation.

My reaction to your rewrite of one of the most eloquent and simple logical proofs in the history of philosophy.

Uriah wrote:

Facepalm: To hit one's own forehead with your hand/palm, and drag it down one's face. Most often done in frustration or agitation.

My reaction to your rewrite of one of the most eloquent and simple logical proofs in the history of philosophy.

This "emoticon" would also work...

PA wrote ...

Quote :

Helium, do you believe God is omniscient? If so, God knows evil.

If everything emanates from God, then God must possess the capacity for evil, or else evil could not exist.

There's just no way to get around it. If everything is from God, evil is, too.

So you're saying that evil is part of God.

Therefore God IS evil

But at the same time we can't say that

Evil is God ...

Because God is more than evil. But evil is not more than God.

But I don't like the equation God is evil.

But what's evil.

Without fully defining it, suffice to say that evil is a decision made by a sentient being capable of making a decision between right and wrong, good and evil.

I'm wandering a bit here, but let me switch to answer your question on omniscience.

Actually lets consider all the omnis

Omniscience
Onmipotent
Omnipresent.


= all knowing, all powerful and everywhere.

The third, omnipresent (everywhere) is not mutually exclusive of free will.

But the first two are. He can't be all knowing if he doesn't know what I'm going to do; and he certainly can't stop me from doing what I'm going to do so he can't be all powerful.

But it's a bit of a paradox PA.

I mean according to my definition, then, an all powerful and all knowing God and free will are paradoxical. It can't be free will if he already knows what I'm going to do. Then he has known that for all time, has known that since the beginning of time and knew before he created me exactly how the story would end.

So either way you've got a conundrum.

Believe in an all powerfull and all knowing God and how can you explain free will.

Believe in free will, then how do you explain an all powerful, all knowing God.

One way, as we've discussed in the past, is that God simply knows all possibilities. EVen that being the case, though, he knows all roads, but doesn't know which one I'll go down.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I still don't see the technical problem with God allowing free will.

In this metaphor you can certainly say God allowed evil into the system. But he doesn't cause evil. Sentient beings with choice do!

Can you jump up.....and STAY up? No, because God set the parameters for what can or can't happen.

If you have the choice to commit evil, evil must be within the parameters of things that are allowed. By God.

Helium wrote:

So you're saying that evil is part of God.

Therefore God IS evil

My hand is a part of me. Does that mean I am my hand?

Quote :

Can you jump up.....and STAY up? No, because God set the parameters for what can or can't happen.

If you have the choice to commit evil, evil must be within the parameters of things that are allowed. By God.

Yes, that's what I am saying. I don't think free will can exist without evil. Absolutely. But evil does not emanate from God.
So I'm much more comfortable with that definition that your previous one, listed below ...

Quote :

If everything emanates from God, then God must possess the capacity for evil, or else evil could not exist.

There's just no way to get around it. If everything is from God, evil is, too.

Aaron said

Quote :

My hand is a part of me. Does that mean I am my hand?

You are your hand ... and more. But your hand is not more than you.

Does that therefore mean that ...

God is evil... and more. But evil is not more than God?

That's how I was led to my original reduction of your logic into God is Evil.

I should have qualified it, I guess, by saying.

God is evil ... and more.

Uriah wrote:

Facepalm: To hit one's own forehead with your hand/palm, and drag it down one's face. Most often done in frustration or agitation.

My reaction to your rewrite of one of the most eloquent and simple logical proofs in the history of philosophy.

Well, I'm sorry I caused you frustration by rewriting it. I was just trying to show how it doesn't make sense. It makes it sound like God is evil for not preventing evil. If God prevented evil then he would be preventing goodness also because you can't have one without the other. If God prevented either then he wouldn't be either malevolent or benevolent because these opposites couldn't exist. Only if both exist could God be considered either malevolent or benevolent. God does allow evil but he also allows goodness. You can't figure out if God is good or evil by what he prevents or allows but by what his will is. If he wants evil to happen then he is evil. If he wants goodness to happen then he is good. By my rewrite I was trying to make the point that I believe God is benevolent because he gave us freewill and the reason he gave it to us is because he wants us to choose to be good.

Also, I disagree that God is not omnipotent because he is not able to prevent evil. I don't define omnipotent as being able to do everything but able to do everything that is logically possible. It is logically possible for a world without good or evil to exist and a world where both exists. A world with just good or just evil is logically impossible. If God creates goodness then evil is the logical by product.

God could of created a world without, good, evil, and freewill but he choose to do the opposite. I believe he had good reasons for making this choice. I believe God doesn't want us to be robots and that he wants us to make good choices because good choices have good consequences. Also, I believe the universe is designed this way to add meaning to our lives.

I'm not convinced that it is a simple logical proof. Convince me!


Helium,

I'm going to have to still disagree that God being all knowing and us having freewill is paradoxical. It's true that you don't have the choice to make different choices than the choices that God already knows that you are going to make but that doesn't prove that you lack freewill. It just proves that you lack the choice to change your future just like you lack the choice to change your past. If God told you your future then he would be giving you the choice to change it and if he gave you a time machine he would be giving you the choice to change your past. Even if God doesn't know your future you still don't have the choice to change your future because you don't know the exact consequences of your choices until you make them. Tomorrow you will have choices to make. You will way the consequences of your choices then out of your freewill you will make your choices and hope the consequences turn out the way you want them to but the events of tomorrow are only going to unfold one way. You can't change what choices you are going to make because you don't know what the consequences of those choices will be. After you make your choices you may regret them but since you don't have a time machine you won't be able to change them.

lets say you have freewill, nobody including God knows your future, and I have an ability to look into your future. I've never used this ability before but tomorrow I decide to use this power and I look into your future. Would I be taking away your freewill by looking into your future even though you would of made the same choices rather or not I looked?

Lets say I also have the ability to forget anything I want and after I looked into your future I decided to forget what I saw. Would I be giving you your freewill back by forgetting your future even though you would of made the same choices rather or not I forgot?

Does my knowledge of your future or lack of it effect how you will make your choices? If it doesn't effect how you will make your choices then how could it possibly take away or give you freewill?

My point is that God's knowledge of your future choices doesn't cause your future choices. It is the other way around. What you will choose out of your own freewill causes God to know them. Knowledge is always an effect. For an example, Your existence causes me to know you exist and my knowledge of your existence doesn't cause you to exist. Can you think of any other form of knowledge besides knowledge of the future that is a cause instead of an effect? I can't and that is why I don't believe knowledge of the future is an exception to the rule. If your freewill is going to cause your future then it doesn't matter if God knows it or not.

Helium wrote:

Aaron said

Quote :

My hand is a part of me. Does that mean I am my hand?

You are your hand ... and more. But your hand is not more than you.

IMO, "I" am not my hand. "I" am not my body. "I" am not my mind. IMO, "I" is a holistic concept and although all of those things are a part of me they don't, and can't, define who or what I am as a person.

So, although evil may be an aspect or a part of god, god is not evil anymore than "I" am my hand.

Schizophretard wrote:

Uriah wrote:

Facepalm: To hit one's own forehead with your hand/palm, and drag it down one's face. Most often done in frustration or agitation.

My reaction to your rewrite of one of the most eloquent and simple logical proofs in the history of philosophy.

Well, I'm sorry I caused you frustration by rewriting it. I was just trying to show how it doesn't make sense. It makes it sound like God is evil for not preventing evil. If God prevented evil then he would be preventing goodness also because you can't have one without the other. If God prevented either then he wouldn't be either malevolent or benevolent because these opposites couldn't exist. Only if both exist could God be considered either malevolent or benevolent. God does allow evil but he also allows goodness. You can't figure out if God is good or evil by what he prevents or allows but by what his will is. If he wants evil to happen then he is evil. If he wants goodness to happen then he is good. By my rewrite I was trying to make the point that I believe God is benevolent because he gave us freewill and the reason he gave it to us is because he wants us to choose to be good.

Well, I think you’re missing the point because you seem to have already decided what the motivations of God are. You’ve stated that you believe God, “is benevolent because he gave us freewill and the reason he gave it to us is because he wants us to choose to be good”.
But you have no proof for that.

Epicurus, was answering your position about how you’ve come to know the benevolent will, and intention, of God with a logical argument. One that shows you are wrong about God necessarily being, or wanting, good. One that you chose not to even address, instead you just tell me it makes no sense. Which tells me you’re not even thinking about it.

Epicurus’ point is very simple. There is either, A) No God(s), or B) A God that wants neither Good nor Evil.

Whatever the case, we must accept that Evil, and Good, both exist – you cannot have either or.

Schizophretard wrote:

Also, I disagree that God is not omnipotent because he is not able to prevent evil. I don't define omnipotent as being able to do everything but able to do everything that is logically possible.

Well, it doesn’t really matter how you define it. But, if you’re telling me that Logic rules over all, than you’re saying that God is ruled by logic. Hence the universe he/she/it created must then, by consequence, be ruled by logic as well.

Schizophretard wrote:

It is logically possible for a world without good or evil to exist and a world where both exists. A world with just good or just evil is logically impossible. If God creates goodness then evil is the logical by product.

Aha, yes you are saying the universe is ruled by logic as well. Well, I hate to break it to you, but you basically agree with Epicurus. Though you said he, “makes no sense”. Hmmm.

Schizophretard wrote:

God could of created a world without, good, evil, and freewill but he choose to do the opposite. I believe he had good reasons for making this choice. I believe God doesn't want us to be robots and that he wants us to make good choices because good choices have good consequences. Also, I believe the universe is designed this way to add meaning to our lives.

But, you said above that “evil is the logical byproduct [of god creating goodness]”. Therefore, if any good exists at all, evil must exist also. Therefore, some people cannot help but be evil, because after all – it is logically impossible for a universe to exist where all people are good. If God is bound by logic, as you say, and it is logically impossible for a universe to contain only good, then God as well cannot be purely good, nor evil – in fact, he/she/it is both.

God created the universe, and because he/she/it is omnipotent – by your definition, even – he/she/it knew that certain people would never experience happiness, and that certain people would only create evil, and commit evil acts. And others, would follow he/she/its “intended” course and be good. Hmm, those sound like robots to me.

But then, if God is ruled by this logic, and is both good and evil, and the universe is both good and evil, then so to are we. Therefore to extend your metaphor, it is impossible for any person to be wholly good, or wholly evil. And for every “mostly good” there must be counteracting “mostly evil” person. In that case, logically speaking God cannot possibly want us to “choose good”, because your God is bound by logic, he/she/it must therefore accept that Good and Evil must be in perfect balance. The amount of good can never exceed the amount of evil, and vice versa.

So then, the universe is, after all, morally ambiguous. And free will isn’t so much of a choice, as it is playing with the odds of cause and effect.

Schizophretard wrote:

I'm not convinced that it is a simple logical proof. Convince me!

It is your job to convince yourself, and then go about trying to prove yourself wrong. Though, and this I can say with the certainty of age, if you wait on any assumption long enough, the Universe will invariably prove it wrong. Even that one. LOL

Quote :

IMO, "I" am not my hand. "I" am not my body. "I" am not my mind. IMO, "I" is a holistic concept and although all of those things are a part of me they don't, and can't, define who or what I am as a person.

So, although evil may be an aspect or a part of god, god is not evil anymore than "I" am my hand.

Your hand is totally controlled by YOU.
God, on the other hand, has NO control over evil, for evil is a decision made by a sentient being.

I also think that we both agree there is a God and that there is evil. At the heart, I think we actually probably are in agreement as to the relationship between God and evil but are getting a bit caught up in semantics (which is easy to do with these kinds of issues).

I mean your first paragraph totally jives with what I've been saying. There is God, there is evil. Therefore God has obviously allowed for evil.

But the big difference is a hand can't do but what the mind (in the body) wills it to do.

God, on the other hand, has no control over evil because evil is committed by the sentient beings who have free will and therefore a choice

Very interesting observation, Schitzo, get back to ya on it.

Strictly speaking you're right. God knowing the future wouldn't necessarily preclude free will.

But then logic goes to work on that scenario, and it can't help but consider that if there is a God, God knows exactly what's going to happen, so why bother going through the motions. Obviously he doesn't need to do it for himself. So the only conclusion is that he's doing it for our benefit. Perhaps we need to learn a lesson.

Food for thought, get back to ya in more detail later.

It's true that I've already decided what God's motivations are but I don't agree that I don't have proof of them. I may not have proof that satisfies you but it satisfies me and his motivations I've decided based on these proofs. I'm not saying that I know these are his motivations but out of the choices of believing that God wants evil, that God wants good, or God just doesn't care I'm going to have to say that he most likely wants good.

Yes, I did tell you it makes no sense but I did and am addressing it. I did think very hard on it before I replied to you. At first it does sound like a reasonable argument but after thinking about it I realized that it doesn't make sense.

If Epicurus’ point is that God doesn't want neither good or evil then why did he even create them?

Yes, God and the universe are ruled by logic but I don't see how I basically agree with him.

I disagree that some people cannot help but be evil, because after all – it is logically impossible for a universe to exist where all people are good. No, that isn't logically impossible but it would be logically impossible for there to be a universe where all people are good but none of them have the potential to choose evil. As long as those people choose to be good and have the potential to choose to be evil then it is logically possible for there to be a universe with all good people.

What I meant by “evil is the logical byproduct [of god creating goodness]” is that evil as a concept and the potential for evil is the logical byproduct. Someone that is good is considered good because they are not evil and have the potential to be so.

I never said God's intended course was for everything to be good. God's intended course is for us to have freewill and he hopes we choose to be good. Freewill doesn't sound like robots to me.

I disagree that God is both and that it is logically impossible for God to be completely good. He can be completely good as long as he has the potential to be evil. The same goes with anything else. If everything was good, there was no potential for evil, and evil didn't even exist in concept then everything that is good isn't really good because it must be good in comparison to evil. So, it is logically possible for God to be completely Good with the potential to be evil, for there to be a universe with creatures that have freewill and the potential to do either good or evil, and for God to hope that his creatures choose to be good. I believe this is how it is and I believe it is logical.

So, I don't believe Epicurus proved anything. It just sounds like a straw man argument to me because he defines omnipotent to mean that God can do things that are logically impossible, he assumes that God must be malevolent if he doesn't prevent evil(even though God would be preventing good and freewill in the process), and that somehow therefore there must not be a god.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? No he is not willing to prevent evil but he is able and if he did he would be preventing good and freewill also. So, he is omnipotent because he has the power to do everything that is logically possible.

Is he able, but not willing? Yes he is able but all because he is not willing doesn't make him malevolent. I believe it is logically possible for God to be benevolent and still not be willing to prevent evil.

Is he both able and willing? No, just able

Then whence cometh evil? God's will is that we have freewill, he hopes we choose good because he is benevolent, there must be the potential to choose evil for there to be the potential to choose good. Evil comes from people acting on this potential.

Is he neither able nor willing? He is able but not willing because our omnipotent benevolent God has a better plan than making a universe without good, evil, and freewill.

Then why call him God? Because he is omnipotent and benevolent.

Thanks for explaining yourself Schizo, I now understand where you are coming from.

Essentially, I disagree with the basic premise that mankind, and the human experiential endeavor, is the purpose of creation – therefore I see a God that is neither benevolent, nor malevolent – simply a greater schema that we humans are simply not fit (mentally and spiritually) to understand.

In that sense, we somewhat agree because I also admit that it is only Humanity for whom there is a choice between good and evil.

I’m just not willing to say that this choice is the point of it all, or the crux of existence. Instead I think it’s just a by-product of our moral consciousness. We could not conceive of morality unless we could conceive of immorality. Either way, the differences between the two are often ambiguous, and rarely easy to identify with certainty. But there is enough basic moral certainty (don’t lie, cheat, steal, or kill, etc…) for it to form the framework foundation of Human culture.

You, on the other hand, are arguing a theodicy. Except it is one closer to Augustine’s than it is to Leibniz’s, because your’s requires a God that is largely benevolent, cares about humanity above all other created beings, and for whom evil is a kind of “test” we are given to drive us closer towards God’s love.


Either position is logically solvent. Though the theodicy is often considered a weak argument, because it pins so much of its existence on presumptions about the ineffable, it is still a very popular counter to the Empirical stance. I suppose if you and I were to talk about the story of Job, we would interpret it in two completely opposite manners.

I’m not trying to come of in a condescending manner here, but if you’ve never read any Leibniz, you may want to go search him out. I think you'd really enjoy his take.

Ah well, we could continue to argue this with each other, but I don’t think either of will have any luck with the other – I think we are both hard headed, intelligent, people who’ve thought this through. I’ve enjoyed the debate though.

I will say, in closing, that I find the prescribing of an ultimate benevolent nature to God to be a bit overly optimistic, Panglossian if you will, and runs completely anathema to an honest understanding of how the universe operates. The only malevolence, or love, for man that is exhibited anywhere in the universe, is solely in the heart of man.

But thanks, this was a good read to wake up to!
Peace,
Uriah

Quote :

Essentially, I disagree with the basic premise that mankind, and the human experiential endeavor, is the purpose of creation – therefore I see a God that is neither benevolent, nor malevolent – simply a greater schema that we humans are simply not fit (mentally and spiritually) to understand.

Yes, very good discussion.
I find myself in Schizo's corner on his last post.

And Uriah, I don't see your beliefs so far as being mutually exclusive of mine.

Certainly from my perspective, though, my metaphor of there being a god and there being evil, but that evil does NOT come from God but from the sentient createures who have free will, absolutely does not suggest or require a specialness of humans, either on the earth or in universe.

Quite clearly, humans are not special, other than evolution's propensity to ever evolving complexity which might account for a species getting to the point of talking about existence and God, etc.

Any logical view of God, I agree with you, would have to be premised upon humans, the earth, the milky way and the local cluster of galaxies not being special. Certainly I agree with you on that.

Certainly I also agree with your observation of "a greater schema that we humans are simply not fit (mentally and spiritually) to understand."

Where I disagree with Schizo (and Helium) is that you assume God to be something separate from us. Once you have established this separateness, you proceed to assign intentions and emotions to this separate entity. And, you're just guessing.

I prefer to think of our minds as an extension of God's mind. Our intentions are God's intentions. We, having reached the developmental stage that includes sentience and self-awareness, continue the creative process that God started. We have free will because we are co-creators.

The Deist God started everything in motion, but doesn't intervene. This means God doesn't micromanage the future. We do.

This is how I explained it in my book:

Quote :

God is everything!

Yes, that means that you are a part of God, and so am I, and so are the trees and the sky and the oceans – and so is this page. Every atom and every molecule is a creation of God and a product of God.
We are, then, truly God’s children. Just as your children carry your genetic code, so we are genetically children of God.
How can that be? It may help if you stop thinking of God as a physical being, and instead, think of God as pure energy. Science has shown us that energy can be converted into matter and vice-versa. God created (converted His energy) into all the matter in the universe.
God, in creating the universe, bestowed upon us the ability to control and manage it. He had no choice, since we are part of God. We would have to “inherit” the ability to continue creating.

We are all creators.

But, we as individuals do not contain as much energy as God, and we are likewise limited in our creative abilities.
If you isolated a drop of water, wouldn’t it still have the same properties as the ocean, only in a smaller quantity?
It is said that He “gave” us free will. Wouldn’t that be inevitable?
We create our own environment. We shape the experiences we have, the relationships we form, and the people we attract into our lives. The amount of danger we are willing to face in this life, the joy, the sorrow – all of this is within our control!
Of course, we can ignore our own role in all this and insist that we are mere victims of everyone else’s actions, but when you realize that you are a creator, you will stop thinking as a victim and start taking a conscious role in controlling your own life, as God intended.
You are already creating your environment, even if you don’t know it yet! If life isn’t turning out the way you had hoped, it is because you didn’t create the life you wanted. The good news is, you can change your life any time you want – and as many times as you want!
You already have all the tools you need to shape your world. Your subconscious mind is your scalpel. With it, you can access all the knowledge and resources contained in the universe. You can tap into the Universal Intelligence. That intelligence is God. You can create anything that you can imagine!
“God created Man in his own image” leads us to believe that we look like God, but we are flesh and blood while God is not. How can this be?

Literal translations have a tendency to cause confusion that way.

What if it really means “God created Man in his own imagination”? God created us by imagining us – thought is the first step in creation! Everything we do begins with a thought.

Paul Anthony wrote:

Where I disagree with Schizo (and Helium) is that you assume God to be something separate from us. Once you have established this separateness, you proceed to assign intentions and emotions to this separate entity. And, you're just guessing.

I prefer to think of our minds as an extension of God's mind. Our intentions are God's intentions. We, having reached the developmental stage that includes sentience and self-awareness, continue the creative process that God started. We have free will because we are co-creators.

The Deist God started everything in motion, but doesn't intervene. This means God doesn't micromanage the future. We do.

This is how I explained it in my book:

Quote :

God is everything!

Yes, that means that you are a part of God, and so am I, and so are the trees and the sky and the oceans – and so is this page. Every atom and every molecule is a creation of God and a product of God.
We are, then, truly God’s children. Just as your children carry your genetic code, so we are genetically children of God.
How can that be? It may help if you stop thinking of God as a physical being, and instead, think of God as pure energy. Science has shown us that energy can be converted into matter and vice-versa. God created (converted His energy) into all the matter in the universe.
God, in creating the universe, bestowed upon us the ability to control and manage it. He had no choice, since we are part of God. We would have to “inherit” the ability to continue creating.

We are all creators.

But, we as individuals do not contain as much energy as God, and we are likewise limited in our creative abilities.
If you isolated a drop of water, wouldn’t it still have the same properties as the ocean, only in a smaller quantity?
It is said that He “gave” us free will. Wouldn’t that be inevitable?
We create our own environment. We shape the experiences we have, the relationships we form, and the people we attract into our lives. The amount of danger we are willing to face in this life, the joy, the sorrow – all of this is within our control!
Of course, we can ignore our own role in all this and insist that we are mere victims of everyone else’s actions, but when you realize that you are a creator, you will stop thinking as a victim and start taking a conscious role in controlling your own life, as God intended.
You are already creating your environment, even if you don’t know it yet! If life isn’t turning out the way you had hoped, it is because you didn’t create the life you wanted. The good news is, you can change your life any time you want – and as many times as you want!
You already have all the tools you need to shape your world. Your subconscious mind is your scalpel. With it, you can access all the knowledge and resources contained in the universe. You can tap into the Universal Intelligence. That intelligence is God. You can create anything that you can imagine!
“God created Man in his own image” leads us to believe that we look like God, but we are flesh and blood while God is not. How can this be?

Literal translations have a tendency to cause confusion that way.

What if it really means “God created Man in his own imagination”? God created us by imagining us – thought is the first step in creation! Everything we do begins with a thought.

I like that explanation. It makes perfect sense to me.

Paul Anthony wrote:

Where I disagree with Schizo (and Helium) is that you assume God to be something separate from us. Once you have established this separateness, you proceed to assign intentions and emotions to this separate entity. And, you're just guessing.

I prefer to think of our minds as an extension of God's mind. Our intentions are God's intentions. We, having reached the developmental stage that includes sentience and self-awareness, continue the creative process that God started. We have free will because we are co-creators...

Yes, I agree too.

Paul Anthony,

Well, I don't think we are exactly separate from God and I don't think of God as a physical being. For the most part I agree with everything you're saying. It almost sounds like my thoughts. I also believe that God is everything because God is the total of reality. I believe we are within God's mind and therefore all of us are parts of God.

I think of it like God imagining a story. He thought up the universe(the story). We are characters in his story. So, we are separate from God the same way characters are separate from their author. Yes we are a part of God because we are within him but we have separate personalities. So, I agree that we are an extension of God's mind and we are all creators because we have freewill(co-authors). It's like God created the basic script of the story and our freewill makes us editors. So, the reason I "assign intentions and emotions to this separate entity" is because I believe his story has a basic plot and I'm using my judgement to do my best to speculate what that could be. So, far it appears to me that this is a story about good, evil, and freewill. I believe God is good and wants a happy ending but that is all up to us.

The only things I think we disagree about is that we are not separate from God, God is pure energy(I think of him as pure thought and energy as one of his ideas), we would have to “inherit” the ability to continue creating(I believe he didn't have to give us freewill), that we are not ever victims(evil people are co-creators also), and thought is the first step in creation(I believe this is the only step God used). For the most part I think we are in agreement though.

I disagree that we are guessing. I would say we are speculating just like you are.

Which book is this? How many have you written?

Helium wrote:

Very interesting observation, Schitzo, get back to ya on it.

Strictly speaking you're right. God knowing the future wouldn't necessarily preclude free will.

But then logic goes to work on that scenario, and it can't help but consider that if there is a God, God knows exactly what's going to happen, so why bother going through the motions. Obviously he doesn't need to do it for himself. So the only conclusion is that he's doing it for our benefit. Perhaps we need to learn a lesson.

Food for thought, get back to ya in more detail later.

You are exactly right! Why bother going through the motions? This is a problem I had as a Christian. I asked myself,"If God is all knowing then he knew everything that was going to happen in perfect detail eons before he even created the universe. So, why even create it? What would it profit him?" What I never considered was that God could be outside of time and that maybe he never even created the universe in time.

Bible God exists within time and it isn't something he created. Before creation Bible God existed in eternity(eternity in the Bible is an infinite amount of time). So, He waited for an infinite amount of time before creating the universe and the whole time he knew what he was going to create in an infinite future. After an infinite amount of time he created the universe exactly the way he knew he would. From the time of the creation all the way to the present, Bible God has existed in time and his watch ticks at the same rate ours does. Every second that passes Bible God watches the events of the world unfold exactly the way he always knew they would. It's like Bible God has been watching a rerun of the universe for 6000 years and somehow he is still completely interested in the show.

As you should be able to see, the previous paragraph is completely absurd. Time is a part of the creation. So, God must of created time outside of it. This changes the definition of eternity from an infinite amount of time to the complete lack of time. Eternity is timelessness. So, When did God create the universe? 6000 years ago? No! About 13.5 billion years ago? Guess again! In eternity? Exactly!!!

Now that I clarified when God created it I must now answer the questions,"How did he create it if he lacks time to do it? Wouldn't the steps from knowing what he wants to create to actually doing it take time? If from God's point of reference he created the universe in eternity then wouldn't the universe be eternal and if it's eternal then how could he even have created it?".

Well, He never got past the step of knowing everything that was going to happen before it did and never actually made it happen. What I mean is God isn't really a creator god. He is more like a creative god. Like you said,"Why bother going through the motions?" He didn't and doesn't need to. He can't gain any new knowledge from creating something he already knows everything about. If he is going through the motions then our universe is a perfect copy of the one within his mind. It would be a pointless copy. Therefore, ours is not a copy of the universe in his mind. Ours is the universe in his mind and it is the original version. Since God never thinks anything new, has always been all knowing, and exists outside of time in eternity then the universe is also eternal. It was never created.

What I'm trying to say is that God doesn't know what we are going to do before we do it from his perspective because to God there is no before. He is outside of time. From his perspective all of time from the beginning to the end is like an eternal moment to God. So, he knows your future because to him it is the present. He knows your future the same way you will. When it becomes tomorrow God will be in the same moment he is in now because his clock doesn't tick.

I keep on trying to explain this on this forum and It seems like everyone is having trouble getting it. So, if you have any questions then please ask.

So, are you saying that the knowledge of time is outside this omniscient God's perception? That "he" cannot know time, or that "he" chooses not to for some ineffable Godly reason?

Uriah wrote:

So, are you saying that the knowledge of time is outside this omniscient God's perception? That "he" cannot know time, or that "he" chooses not to for some ineffable Godly reason?

No, I'm not saying that. Of course he knows time. It's his idea. What I'm saying is he can experience time with an extra dimension than we can. We are inside observers of time. So, we can only experience time as past, present, and future. We can only flow through time towards the future like a boat through a river in a canyon. God on the other hand can observe time as both an inside and outside observer. So, he can see past, present, future, and the whole time line simultaneously. For him it is like he is on top of the canyon looking into the river of time. So, we can see that we are flowing through the canyon and he can see where we are flowing to.

He fully understands our experiences to the point that he is experiencing them with us. So, he is looking at time as an inside observer through our eyes. He also sees the whole picture. So, he is also looking at time as an outside observer through his eyes. It's like we are half blind when it comes to time. So, we blindly walk to the future and he sees exactly where we are going.

The knowledge of time isn't outside this omniscient God's perception. We are the ones that know less and perceive less. He knows it all and perceives it all.

Excellent question! Any more?

PA, I am in complete agreement on a non-intervening God and on free will. In fact, I believe my own metaphor clearly states that each sentient being is responsible for and is the author of his own evil, and was actually taking you panendeists to task for suggesting that evil is somehow divine.

And I've previously said that as far as the constitution of the universe, perhaps I've not thought about this enough, but it doesn't matter to me whether the physical universe is part of, or is actually a creation of, and therefore apart from, God.

What is significant is whether you believe in God and/or free will. If you do then there are logical assumptions that can be made. Sure these assumptions could be wrong. My assumptions could be wrong. Your assumptions could be wrong. WE each simply work with the knowledge we have to make as clear a picture as we can, I guess, and, if you're like me, you post your thoughts here to see if they stand up under the scrutiny of other eyes.

Helium wrote:

WE each simply work with the knowledge we have to make as clear a picture as we can, I guess, and, if you're like me, you post your thoughts here to see if they stand up under the scrutiny of other eyes.

Fair enough. To be honest, my own opinions are in flux, the more I read about Buddhism. Our philosophies should be a work in progress, not complete and dogmatic. When I stop thinking, please shoot me.

Quote :

Our philosophies should be a work in progress, not complete and dogmatic. When I stop thinking, please shoot me.

Aye, I'll drink to that!