lol
I guess this is a prime example of the "attack everyone" attitude as exemplified through rabid atheism
Why Did Omniscient God Need to Create?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
I guess this is a prime example of the "attack everyone" attitude as exemplified through rabid atheism
Ohhhhhh... poetic. Perhaps questioning a point of view is not always necessary. I would hardly call it logic.
Note that you're admitting to trolling and then labeling me a troll. Do you want to discuss my opinion? I already gave my opinion but then I'm followed up with insults and a illiterate question.
By the way this was poetic too
Are you here to rap? Perhaps you're not here to discuss but to superimpose your rapping.Peace be unto you
lol
I guess this is a prime example of the "attack everyone" attitude as exemplified through rabid atheism
True indeed.
Peace be unto you
You may take it however you like. Let's add this "rabid atheism" to crap and worthless. I still don't see any relevance to OP, other than trying to divert the main topic in question.
You're the one being replied to, it seems you're the reason its going off topic.
Peace be unto you
Where does the Bible say to praise his creation?
I think you missed the point.
Psychoticepisode is an adamant atheist
(kind of hard to see through the red haze of animosity I guess)
:shrug:
"Questioning a point of view is not always necessary."
A statement. Let's ask question to this statement:
1. If "not always necessary", under which conditions would it be necessary?
a) never
b) sometimes (when? or according to what?)
c) "according to my wish" (probably got this principle from this so called "creator")
2. Can "believing in non-existent things" also be described by nothing but a "point of view"?
Followed by a verdict:
"I would hardly call it logic".
What is your criteria of logic, so we could follow up its dynamics, compare it other type of logics?
.
Where and how did I troll? Sample sentence with your definition of trolling, so I can understand the "logic" behind the concept of trolling in your terms.
Let's see; this is your first entry in this thread, post #7:
The first sentence of OP says "If there is an all knowing entity then what reason would it have to create?" And you take this sentence as it is in order to comment on it:
"Could it be because He is the "Creator" and that is reason enough for Him to create?"
No, it is not enough reason, it is not a "reason" at all. Because you and your religious idea claim that there is an "intelligent reason" behind creation which is opposite to conditional, temporary, evolving, transforming universe structure. This is opposite to "when a supernovae collapses it creates an environment -natural reason if you like- for child stars to change their course"; it is opposite to "if climate change dramatically, it becomes one of the reasons for some animals changing their lifestyles".
What you call enough reason, is not a reason at all. It's a deadlock, specifically designed to refrain from asking any question towards the main story and it's claims.
Your second post (#10) is an answer to PsychoticEpisode's "lame" criticism:
Where? Definitely not in here; so in which thread, or in which post?
"Obvious"? Up until this point, you didn't say anything at all, let alone "obvious". Your one sentence claim in post #7 was pointing out an arbitrary, unknown, unintelligible reasoning by a superhero. It may be obvious for your mind, but definitely not for the reader.
You see, that's the main flow in reasoning: Nobody claims that "I am God and I am the creator". There are some people, like yourself, simply believe and claim that there is such a "God". The subject creator (God) didn't directly speak to anyone (other than "his" prophets of course), so we can not ask directly to "him". "He" is not observable, measurable or anything else in that matter. So just because you believe in him, you can make above loop statement, and you call it "the fact". He claims that prophet claims that you claim. Where is the fact in here?
So basically, you speak about God's claim. How do you know about this information? From a Holy Book; how did you get this book? Through a prophet (a human); where did he get this book? From God. This is cycle in itself and it doesn't say or answer anything unless you unconditionally believe in this whole story. You try to explain one thing with it's own: Why X created? Because X is creator. Perfect...
"Just because" means it is closed to other reasons. Because if it was only "because", it would be other reasons as well. So saying this "just because" contributes to the closed cycle of God reasoning; but it still doesn't say anything about the main question: What is the reason "behind" of creation?
Your third reaction (post #12) summarizes your attitude, as well as your intention that I criticised in the first place:
That's it: Why didn't you say in the beginning that you didn't like the question in the first place. If it was "evident by this question", what were you trying to do? That's what I call trolling. That's my understanding.
And here is your fourth post (#14):
Why is it unrelated? Could it be because your intention was realised? I explained above, since God doesn't speak to humanity directly, prophet is the messenger, and people can only know God's will through prophet. Can you object this? No, you can not, otherwise others must be prophets too, or there wouldn't be any need for prophets. In order to simplify: God sends his message through prophets, and prophets only. It's up to people to believe or not to believe in prophets. But in any case, no prophet, no religion, no concept of God. So what are the differences between similarities and differences between God and Prophet? If there is any difference, how this difference is relevant for the rest of the humans who can not listen to God directly?
After that, you just start to attack, and you can follow up my reaction against it starting from my first post to this thread (#17)
So when we go back to your claim:
No, you didn't give any opinion.
You are insulting reader's intelligence and expecting to get more than what you call "insults".
And just because you don't understand or don't know the meaning of "reason", that doesn't make others illiterate; it just shows your capacity.
By the way this was poetic too
As you can follow, changing to topic with using primary schoolboy arguments will just add to the list; let's remember:
poetic, rapping, crap, worthless, rabid Atheism -this one from Lightgigantic that you approved through your ass-licking session as seen below:
Back to the main issue: Why did Omniscient God Need to Create?
What point? I added yours next to "crap" which was initially said to Psychoticepisode anyway. Plus you quoted my post, not his. Are you trying to be cool and clever, or trolling?
I am trying to help you form a coherent argument by bringing to your attention that psychotic episode is not a theist.
OK?
While knowing that Psychotic Episode is an atheist/skeptical-humanist, let's get back to the point at hand. Why did God need to create: the answer is simple because he wanted to.
Go to sacred-texts.com, and it'll give you the perspective from Jewish mystics, providing information from the mishnah and other Jewish mythology concerning God's previous creations. According to what current rabbis teach, God's first creations were imperfect and defile the Earth over a period of millions of years until he decided to recreate mankind with Adam and Eve.
Some could argue He was bored and others that He wanted to see His own Power, but it doesn't really matter; what matters is that we are here, and as the psalmist says, "Let every thing that hath breath praise ye the LORD."
Go to sacred-texts.com, and it'll give you the perspective from Jewish mystics, providing information from the mishnah and other Jewish mythology concerning God's previous creations. According to what current rabbis teach, God's first creations were imperfect and defile the Earth over a period of millions of years until he decided to recreate mankind with Adam and Eve.
Some could argue He was bored and others that He wanted to see His own Power, but it doesn't really matter; what matters is that we are here, and as the psalmist says, "Let every thing that hath breath praise ye the LORD."
I don't find 786 to be a troll but I could be wrong. We have had good discussions and we have agreed to disagree. What makes him a troll? He responded to a simplistic OP with a simplistic response from the perspective of a believer; in the Religion forum.
Baftan you've spent quite some time in your last response, so I will afford you a full response.
Challenging a point of view is dependent on the person with a different point of view. There are not conditions for this. If someone is adamant to prove that their own point of view is the only thing then perhaps it is important for them to challenge another's point of view.
The thread had a question, and a question can be answered with a simple answer- it does not require the answerer to accommodate the point of view of another and thus requires no challenging.
So you would rather waste time? Do you even recognize what I was calling 'hardly...logic"? It was your rambling. All of the crap you spew about 'lack of ability' and so on...
.
You stated "Crap, worthless, what else? I repeat, nothing else".... In that small rap of yours you claimed to be sayin crap and worthless things and you said that you repeat nothing else. Going around in a thread saying 'crap' and worthless things and on top 'repeat'ing them is trolling under my definition.
Great... thanks for reproducing it.
Let me bring attention to the question which you just quoted of the OP, although I don't understand why you forgot it so quickly.. Here it is word for word again:
"If there is an all knowing entity then what reason would it have to create?"
So read it carefully.. Please... The question is asking why God has to create... Reason to create and reason to give purpose to creation are two SEPARATE things!
So your 'intelligent reason' is crap at the moment as it is not what the question is asking.. It is simply asking why did God have to create~!
Now my response, as was then is the same... God claiming to be creator has to create in order for that claim to be true! So to spell it out for you... Since God made a claim, then for him to speak the Truth (which is also His claim) he MUST CREATE!
Cool down and freakin think!
Why must you know? PsychoticEpisode knows, and that is only what matters, as I was addressing him. And the discussion was happening approximately at the same time so I expect that he knows. I give him the benefit of doubt that he can recall information from another thread- by the way why didn't you first ask why PsychoticEpisode brought up the thing about 'because' as he was giving reference to another thread to which I responded.. In other words he knew! and he brought that discussion up in this thread, I didn't bring it up HE DID.... This is the old tactic of attack the theist and turn a blind eye to the atheist approach?
If you think that the reasoning is unintelligible then I have to question your intelligence: A person claims to creator, creates so that his statement becomes true- which is the reason he created!
I can easily follow the logic to be 'intelligible'. As for 'obvious'- I would expect that 'intelligent' people can easily see what I was saying. But I agree it would not have been 'obvious' for 'unintelligent' people but I think giving him this benefit of doubt was a compliment but I guess I should have just spelled everything out.
Let's start with the facts then shall we? And I will try to spell everything out for you.
The OP asked a question about God? The question assumes that God exists..
The OP asked why God needed to create if he is Omniscient? This assumes that God is Onmiscient
An intelligent person will first ask... What God? Zeus, Apollo? Marduk? Apsu? Tiamat? Ea?
Then he will ask which God is Omniscient?
An intelligent person will come to the assumption that the questioner is asking about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God who claims to be Omniscient.
Then the intelligent person will ask that the question asserts that this God is omniscient, so where is this claim made?
The intelligent person will recognize that the claim is probably made in the scriptures of the Bible or Quran, or perhaps it is simply an assertion by the people.
Then the intelligent person will try to find if the claim is made in any of these scriptures.
He will realize that at least in the Islamic book the claim is quite clear.
Now about your comment about 'you believe'- the fact is that the question does not demand an independent answer- it simply demands a logical one. If the question demanded an independent answer then I would call the integrity of this question in question as the questioner does not believe in God (neither do you). Only an intelligent person will realize this!
So what is it that the questioner is trying to do... He is trying to understand how to logically reconcile the concept of Omniscient and why such a person would need to create. Both concepts of 'Omniscient' and 'God' referring to someones belief system! An intelligent person will also realize this.
How does the questioner know that God is Omniscient?
Did the questioner get the 'Omniscient God' and that he 'Created' for some "intelligent reason" from a Holy Book or a belief system that is based on a holy book?
Is the questioner asking the question about the concept of God in this book or is the questioner asking if God can choose a prophet to write a book about God?
Does the question being asked require that this cycle be criticized when in fact the information that is part of the question is taken from the Holy Book, as given by the Prophet, and attributed to God- which is part of the cycle?
Does the initial question question the validity of the belief or the logical coherency of the Omniscient God who created? If it is the latter then does it require to question if someone 'unconditionally believes in this whole story'?
If the question is about the logical coherency of the concepts, would it not be proper to use what information is given in the Book, from which this concept is taken and see if it logically makes sense?
Does the answer provided by 786 give a logical reason why an Omniscient God would need to create?
Do the following lines make logical sense:
God needed to create because apart from claiming to be Omniscient (as the question states) he is also the Creator (which the question does not state but should be known to the questioner as we are still talking about the same God) and also speaks the Truth. For this God's claim of being a Creator to be true, this God must create something. In other words God needed to create to be a Creator and be Truthful that he is a Creator, even though he is Omniscient.
An intelligent person will recognize that the initial question asked by OP is to reconcile why a omniscient God needed to create. The question is about the logical coherence of God being Omniscient yet he created... The question is NOT what you are asking exemplifying that you did not understand anything.
The questioner realizes that he is answered but for some reason resorts to a worthless question.. Note that the questioner (PsychoticEpisode) had used concepts such as 'God', 'Omniscient', 'created' from somewhere which made these claims.. When an answerer (786) makes the claim that that the same source that the questioner used to create his question also states that this God is the 'Creator'- then the questioner poses a second question that questions the source of this claim- that is the questioner is questioning the source of his very question
It would seem to me that the questioner is picking and choosing which attributes to give God even though many attributes are given to God in the sources from which the question is derived.
786 comes to the conclusion that a questioner who doesn't understand the source of his own question could not and will not understand anything.
The question came after only 1 post I made. So I only trying to answer the question. But after being asked the 2nd second I realized that the questioner does not understand anything even the source of his own question.
And I call these questions and comments by you to be stupidity.
It is unrelated because the questioner is unaware of the source of his own question. If this is the question then the OP question is meaningless- to give thread some meaning it is important to hold the same source as a basis of questions. If the question posed is using information from 1 source but then later refuses to accept additional information from the same source- it shall be deemed a stupid and unimportant comment- as any intelligent person would be willing to utilize all known information to answer a question to which they seek an answer especially if the source is the same as from which the original question is derived.
786 realizes that the question of the OP USES information from the book given by the messenger, about the God. The concept of 'God', 'Omniscient', 'created' are all from belief systems who have the basis on books, which would be the primary source.. Can you object to this? To fail to incorporate additional information by the same sources would be considered hypocritical and call in question the questioner and his question.
After first being attacked.
What do you consider my first post?
You are insulting reader intelligence as I have shown above in this post as it seems you are one of those who do not even realize what the question is or the source of the question.
I would call in question your 'capacity' to understand the original question and my simple response.
After not understanding the original question and then not understanding the answer you go on a ramble attacking me and in doing so incorporate your pathetic poetic language to which I simply responded. You are the one who seems to be the 'schoolboy' here.
The question has been answered in my first post to this thread. Note that you asked a very different question, the difference which you may not have realized, earlier- which an intelligent reader would see in the earlier part of this post to which I responded.
Peace be unto you
Challenging a point of view is dependent on the person with a different point of view. There are not conditions for this. If someone is adamant to prove that their own point of view is the only thing then perhaps it is important for them to challenge another's point of view.
The thread had a question, and a question can be answered with a simple answer- it does not require the answerer to accommodate the point of view of another and thus requires no challenging.
So you would rather waste time? Do you even recognize what I was calling 'hardly...logic"? It was your rambling. All of the crap you spew about 'lack of ability' and so on...
.
You stated "Crap, worthless, what else? I repeat, nothing else".... In that small rap of yours you claimed to be sayin crap and worthless things and you said that you repeat nothing else. Going around in a thread saying 'crap' and worthless things and on top 'repeat'ing them is trolling under my definition.
Great... thanks for reproducing it.
Let me bring attention to the question which you just quoted of the OP, although I don't understand why you forgot it so quickly.. Here it is word for word again:
"If there is an all knowing entity then what reason would it have to create?"
So read it carefully.. Please... The question is asking why God has to create... Reason to create and reason to give purpose to creation are two SEPARATE things!
So your 'intelligent reason' is crap at the moment as it is not what the question is asking.. It is simply asking why did God have to create~!
Now my response, as was then is the same... God claiming to be creator has to create in order for that claim to be true! So to spell it out for you... Since God made a claim, then for him to speak the Truth (which is also His claim) he MUST CREATE!
Cool down and freakin think!
Why must you know? PsychoticEpisode knows, and that is only what matters, as I was addressing him. And the discussion was happening approximately at the same time so I expect that he knows. I give him the benefit of doubt that he can recall information from another thread- by the way why didn't you first ask why PsychoticEpisode brought up the thing about 'because' as he was giving reference to another thread to which I responded.. In other words he knew! and he brought that discussion up in this thread, I didn't bring it up HE DID.... This is the old tactic of attack the theist and turn a blind eye to the atheist approach?
If you think that the reasoning is unintelligible then I have to question your intelligence: A person claims to creator, creates so that his statement becomes true- which is the reason he created!
I can easily follow the logic to be 'intelligible'. As for 'obvious'- I would expect that 'intelligent' people can easily see what I was saying. But I agree it would not have been 'obvious' for 'unintelligent' people but I think giving him this benefit of doubt was a compliment but I guess I should have just spelled everything out.
Let's start with the facts then shall we? And I will try to spell everything out for you.
The OP asked a question about God? The question assumes that God exists..
The OP asked why God needed to create if he is Omniscient? This assumes that God is Onmiscient
An intelligent person will first ask... What God? Zeus, Apollo? Marduk? Apsu? Tiamat? Ea?
Then he will ask which God is Omniscient?
An intelligent person will come to the assumption that the questioner is asking about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God who claims to be Omniscient.
Then the intelligent person will ask that the question asserts that this God is omniscient, so where is this claim made?
The intelligent person will recognize that the claim is probably made in the scriptures of the Bible or Quran, or perhaps it is simply an assertion by the people.
Then the intelligent person will try to find if the claim is made in any of these scriptures.
He will realize that at least in the Islamic book the claim is quite clear.
Now about your comment about 'you believe'- the fact is that the question does not demand an independent answer- it simply demands a logical one. If the question demanded an independent answer then I would call the integrity of this question in question as the questioner does not believe in God (neither do you). Only an intelligent person will realize this!
So what is it that the questioner is trying to do... He is trying to understand how to logically reconcile the concept of Omniscient and why such a person would need to create. Both concepts of 'Omniscient' and 'God' referring to someones belief system! An intelligent person will also realize this.
How does the questioner know that God is Omniscient?
Did the questioner get the 'Omniscient God' and that he 'Created' for some "intelligent reason" from a Holy Book or a belief system that is based on a holy book?
Is the questioner asking the question about the concept of God in this book or is the questioner asking if God can choose a prophet to write a book about God?
Does the question being asked require that this cycle be criticized when in fact the information that is part of the question is taken from the Holy Book, as given by the Prophet, and attributed to God- which is part of the cycle?
Does the initial question question the validity of the belief or the logical coherency of the Omniscient God who created? If it is the latter then does it require to question if someone 'unconditionally believes in this whole story'?
If the question is about the logical coherency of the concepts, would it not be proper to use what information is given in the Book, from which this concept is taken and see if it logically makes sense?
Does the answer provided by 786 give a logical reason why an Omniscient God would need to create?
Do the following lines make logical sense:
God needed to create because apart from claiming to be Omniscient (as the question states) he is also the Creator (which the question does not state but should be known to the questioner as we are still talking about the same God) and also speaks the Truth. For this God's claim of being a Creator to be true, this God must create something. In other words God needed to create to be a Creator and be Truthful that he is a Creator, even though he is Omniscient.
An intelligent person will recognize that the initial question asked by OP is to reconcile why a omniscient God needed to create. The question is about the logical coherence of God being Omniscient yet he created... The question is NOT what you are asking exemplifying that you did not understand anything.
The questioner realizes that he is answered but for some reason resorts to a worthless question.. Note that the questioner (PsychoticEpisode) had used concepts such as 'God', 'Omniscient', 'created' from somewhere which made these claims.. When an answerer (786) makes the claim that that the same source that the questioner used to create his question also states that this God is the 'Creator'- then the questioner poses a second question that questions the source of this claim- that is the questioner is questioning the source of his very question
It would seem to me that the questioner is picking and choosing which attributes to give God even though many attributes are given to God in the sources from which the question is derived.
786 comes to the conclusion that a questioner who doesn't understand the source of his own question could not and will not understand anything.
The question came after only 1 post I made. So I only trying to answer the question. But after being asked the 2nd second I realized that the questioner does not understand anything even the source of his own question.
And I call these questions and comments by you to be stupidity.
It is unrelated because the questioner is unaware of the source of his own question. If this is the question then the OP question is meaningless- to give thread some meaning it is important to hold the same source as a basis of questions. If the question posed is using information from 1 source but then later refuses to accept additional information from the same source- it shall be deemed a stupid and unimportant comment- as any intelligent person would be willing to utilize all known information to answer a question to which they seek an answer especially if the source is the same as from which the original question is derived.
786 realizes that the question of the OP USES information from the book given by the messenger, about the God. The concept of 'God', 'Omniscient', 'created' are all from belief systems who have the basis on books, which would be the primary source.. Can you object to this? To fail to incorporate additional information by the same sources would be considered hypocritical and call in question the questioner and his question.
After first being attacked.
What do you consider my first post?
You are insulting reader intelligence as I have shown above in this post as it seems you are one of those who do not even realize what the question is or the source of the question.
I would call in question your 'capacity' to understand the original question and my simple response.
After not understanding the original question and then not understanding the answer you go on a ramble attacking me and in doing so incorporate your pathetic poetic language to which I simply responded. You are the one who seems to be the 'schoolboy' here.
The question has been answered in my first post to this thread. Note that you asked a very different question, the difference which you may not have realized, earlier- which an intelligent reader would see in the earlier part of this post to which I responded.
Peace be unto you
Last edited:
That may be a rhetorical question but I have always liked that response to the question, "What is the purpose of life". But it can be the purpose from the perspective of a believer that God sees life as a comfort to God, and it can be the purpose from the perspective of a non-believer that we can find our own purpose in our relationships with each others.
I don't know you well enough to know which you meant.
imo, the purpose of life is to love, therefore the meaning of life is communion, and that is true for god and people too.
Good answer. I will remember that because it doesn't depend on which way a person decides on the question of faith or no faith in a supreme being. It would be true either way.
Does that mean bacteria love each other?
i suppose it does. aw.
Does God make a conscious decision to create? An omniscient God should not have to ponder over facts or evidence to decide. In fact I hesitate to call it a decision, especially when deciding is negated by omniscience.
God does not decide to do anything unless He isn't omniscient. Any reference to omniscient God making a decision in any religious text is thereby flawed. 786 is correct in pronouncing a Creator God creates but I don't think he considered how illogical it is to be both a omniscient Creator and a planner. If He just creates then fine but it should be totally random and without a plan. There can be no decision on what to create for God.
Of course this will not satisfy a theist. This is totally illogical, and I agree. Can't create without a thought to create something, wouldn't you think? You cannot create without deciding what to create but being all knowing disqualifies you from decision making. The only conclusion is that God created the universe without giving it a thought.
God does not decide to do anything unless He isn't omniscient. Any reference to omniscient God making a decision in any religious text is thereby flawed. 786 is correct in pronouncing a Creator God creates but I don't think he considered how illogical it is to be both a omniscient Creator and a planner. If He just creates then fine but it should be totally random and without a plan. There can be no decision on what to create for God.
Of course this will not satisfy a theist. This is totally illogical, and I agree. Can't create without a thought to create something, wouldn't you think? You cannot create without deciding what to create but being all knowing disqualifies you from decision making. The only conclusion is that God created the universe without giving it a thought.