Those two wonderful answers of yours are meant to what? Surely you never curtail meaningful inquiry. You do it more than anyone. Now I remember why I took a hiatus from slugging it out with you....time for another one.
Last edited:
Why Did Omniscient God Need to Create?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Those two wonderful answers of yours are meant to what? Surely you never curtail meaningful inquiry. You do it more than anyone. Now I remember why I took a hiatus from slugging it out with you....time for another one.
"Seems" being the operational word here.
Unless you are God, you can't actually know what it is like to be God. If you're not God, how can you rightfully make any claims (or be sure of your speculations) about what it is like to be God?
One thing that many atheists have in common is that they try to take themselves out of the discussion about theistic topics, and instead try to discuss those topics as if they would be completely divorced from themselves. That is, they actively presuppose that God has nothing to do with them, and that they have nothing to do with God.
Thus they are atheists, and the discussion is in stale-mate.
The whole theist-atheist debate could be rephrased into the question:
How do we handle not being omniscient?
It appears that if we would be omniscient, there would be no problems either way.
It is reasonable to presume that we are not omniscient, as we can observe on a daily basis that we make mistakes, we wonder, we ask questions, we try to understand things, we study, we inquire, we develop skills, try to solve problems, we are disappointed, we are surprised.
Of course, perhaps there are other reasons for engaging in these pursuits (we might develop skills or study simply because it pleases us, for example).
But it is a fact that often, while engaging in these pursuits, we are plagued with anxiety, or we feel it would alleviate our anxiety if we engaged in these pursuits.
To the best of our current understanding, it just doesn't appear that this anxiety would be present if we would be omniscient.
Not being omniscient, we are left in the position of hope or faith.
So how do we handle that.
I think both Scifes and LG should take a look at the thread title. Where in those words is my atheism indicated? It should be quite obvious that for the purpose of discussion that God exists. However both of them cannot overlook my reputation as a theist basher and thus only see an ulterior nefarious motive in the title.
Are both of them afraid to tackle the question? What if I gave them questions about a person attaining omniscience?
If I was omniscient, would I feel the need to create? No I wouldn't. Would I need to think? I can't think of a reason why since there would be nothing new. Would I feel the need to live? I can't think of a good reason other than to just exist and even then I'm not sure but I would know what it is to die. What would you or I do if we were omniscient? Give it a good think and for once forget that I am an atheist.
My original title question has nothing to do with atheism. They believe omniscient God created so let's hear why. LG said for pleasure, like baking a cake. Scifes, do you agree with his assessment?
sine.nomine
Registered Member
To understand the motives of God, you must first understand the nature of God. God is described throughout the Bible in various ways: God is all knowing (Acts 2:23), self-existent (Jn 5:26), jealous (Deut 6:15), faithful (I Cor 10:13), merciful (2 Chr 30:9), etc. One of the most emphasized though is that God is love (I Jn 4:7-21). Those who don't know love, don't know God. Those who know God live in God- and God in them, and so on. God is also described as a provider throughout the Bible (Gn 22:13-14, Psalm 23, Matt 6:25-34).
God loves us completely, and we are to love God completely. God is willing to provide anything for us, and we are to be willing to provide anything for God. Love is meant to be shared, and one can't share complete mutual love with a pet or likewise inferior being.
Also, you might want to try understanding what the Kingdom of God is (Rom 14:17, Matt 13:1-33, Matt 13:44, Mark 4:26-29, I Cor 4:20).
I believe the Christian God created the Kingdom of God and mankind to share divine love. Although the overall divine plan is meant to be hidden from humans until humans are ready (Dan 8:26, Rev 10:4, etc).
God loves us completely, and we are to love God completely. God is willing to provide anything for us, and we are to be willing to provide anything for God. Love is meant to be shared, and one can't share complete mutual love with a pet or likewise inferior being.
Also, you might want to try understanding what the Kingdom of God is (Rom 14:17, Matt 13:1-33, Matt 13:44, Mark 4:26-29, I Cor 4:20).
I believe the Christian God created the Kingdom of God and mankind to share divine love. Although the overall divine plan is meant to be hidden from humans until humans are ready (Dan 8:26, Rev 10:4, etc).
The nature of God you say. Complete with human qualities. I can agree with you on that but I don't know if your fellow theists will share that opinion.
Aw Jeez, you were doing good until the hidden plans thing. Until we are ready is a line theists can use for the next hundred centuries or maybe longer. .
If God decided to share divine love with His animated thoughts then He must have loved something prior, any idea what it might have been?
sine.nomine
Registered Member
I had a feeling you'd say that. It is something the Bible mentions though, so I figured I'd through it in after my speculation.
God isn't a physical being. It's impossible for us to grasp the concept of a being with no beginning. To say that God must have loved something prior than His "animated thoughts" is assuming a lot of vague facts about something we don't understand. What is time to God anyway?
This is great. Me, an atheist, assuming a lot of vague God facts.
Others here have used the same strategy, putting God in some unreachable universe and making Him incomprehensible are actually a couple of things I actually like hearing. It speaks volumes, especially about where people's heads are at! If you have a problem maintaining your belief or if it is being challenged then all you have to do is have God's omniscience make any knowledge you possess equivalent to that of a household germ. Ever wonder why theists do this?
Last edited:
yet for some reason you are only prepared to work with your (atheistic) version of god .... I guess it makes it easier to drive home your values
if you have such things as a favorite meal, and are not thoroughly disappointed by it repeatedly coming to the same standard, there's no need to even introduce omniscience into the discussion
I think you would be better off having a good think about pleasure and its pursuit ..... even non-omniscient scenarios work outside the general principles you are laying down for the discussion
not just any cake ... but one's favorite cake
Of course you assume a lof of facts about God, some of those facts being vague, some not so vague.
Otherwise, you could not start threads about God, oh wise one.
sine.nomine
Registered Member
Who says these are my beliefs? I was only trying to answer your question from a Christian view, having gone to a Christian school (or as I call it, Auschwitz). I have plenty of problems with Christianity. I'm only saying that when bringing up a question about God, you need to accept that you aren't God. How well do you even know yourself? Ever smoked DMT? Explain that!
The concept of "God" implies a being higher than yourself. Thus, the knowledge you possess is equivalent to that of a household germ compared to any god.
So you're atheist; that's fine with me. You wouldn't ask a theoretical question about Superman, then shoot down every answer with "Krypton doesn't exist!" would you? Otherwise, what's more invalid- my answer or your question?
You mean you know what you would be like and what you would do if you were completely different from the way you are now. Right now you are a mammal with so much brain tissue, with a local vantage. You see out of your eyes, for example, from one point in space. Your eyes select only certain portions of phenomena to notice and your conscious mind only notices a tiny fraction of that. Your senses are limited and you experience only a small portion of reality directly, clouded by your psychology, culture, the point in history you live, etc.
But somehow you know what it would be like to know everything and how you would behave. Amazing.
I don't even know what I would do if I was given a million dollars. I have some guesses, but how it would change me, what I would do in total I only have guesses about.
If I could read minds, I have some guesses about how this would change me, some of those guesses I feel pretty confident about, but I am not sure. Overall though I know that I would be surprised to find how this affected me.
Just that one little step towards omniscience is too great a step for me to be entirely sure, remotely, how this would affect me and what I would do.
If I look at my life, I see many instances, regular ones in fact, where changes in myself or resources ended up changing things in ways that I never expected. Learning a foreign language, the first long term relationship, learning self-defense, all had results I never expected or could have predicted.
But you, somehow know, what it would be like to shift from being a subjective creature with limited knowledge and awareness to what amounts to being non-locally aware of everything and being objective.
Wow.
I think people wildly overestimate the ability of deduction in these kinds of matters. As if we can apply logic to things we have never experienced nor has anyone else we know. It's really rather unscientific.
Me = atheist = no god = no god facts vague or otherwise. Do all you theists expect me to provide God facts all of a sudden? Am I the only one who can see a problem with an atheist issuing God facts? :shrug:
It wasn't an argument, it was a simple claim to know what you would be like if you were completely different.
Well, actually Yup. I was speaking about me. I doubt you can know this about yourself and I would guess that you have been surprised like I have how things turn out to affect you differently than you imagined. But I can't be sure about you. I am sure that I do not know what I would do if I became omniscient.
How odd that you do.
Saying you are not sure is also a claim. There's no getting away from it.
Since we're on the topic of things I wouldn't do if I were omniscient let me ask you this. Would omniscient Doreen speculate?
Of course, but they are different kinds of claims. In mine I am speaking about what I experience in the present. In yours you are speaking about what you would do in a state you have never experienced and were an entirely different kind of entity. You do acknowledge there is a difference.
If I make the claim that I feel pain in my arm, most people would accept this is more likely to be true than if I claim that if I was a gorilla I would be a leader.
I dunno, am I still making stuff or is it all already made?
Funny how you seem to be speculating about me.
No difference as far as a claim of being omniscient. I claim to know and you claim to not...since they are contrary then that is the difference.
Irrelevant. Based on your experience do you think you would speculate if omniscient? IOW's would you start a thought with "What if.....?" Yes or no.