Why Did Omniscient God Need to Create?

[lightgigantic]

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.

Its kind of like when you wake up in the morning. There may be several things you can do (perhaps even at the same time) yet you make a decision to do some, none or all of them according to what outcomes you desire (although at anytime you must be doing something, since no one can refrain from everything).

God does not decide to do anything unless He isn't omniscient.

How so?
How does knowledge about the intricacies of an issue render making a decision irrelevant?

Any reference to omniscient God making a decision in any religious text is thereby flawed.

Only because you have the experience of the mainstay of desire being generated by the environment it appears in (IOW calling upon your conditioned existence to pontificate on something about god's may not be so equitable)

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.

I can't for the life of me work out why you attribute omniscience with the quality of mindlessness, even if you insist on bringing conditioned standards to the discussion.

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.

You make the point several times in your post about your conclusions being logical but you never get into the details of it.
Its hard to figure how one can not deem omniscience as also partaking of the standards of consciousness (thinking, feeling and willing) .... much less how the two stand diametrically opposed.

 

[wynn]

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.

Fundamentals are the building blocks of fun.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Does that mean bacteria love each other?

Two bacteria, very much in love.

 

[Forceman]

Wouldn't you feel useless and lonely if you were this all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-reaching in wisdom Supreme Being who had nothing to acknowledge you or nothing to show your true power. If there was ever an existence without a universe, God wouldn't be lonely per se, as He is Trinitas, but He had to have someway to prove His mighty and infinite power, hence the creation of the universe (whether Big Bang or not).

 

[X-Man2]

Not to mention an Omni3 god would not need any worship,praise or following it. The more I read from theist about this god of theirs,the more they humanize this god.It wants,needs,hopes,gets angry,is wrathful,strikes some down dead etc etc A human god? I have a headache.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Judgment. There are religions out there that profess this is one of God's passions. Is God making a conscious decision when He puts your soul on trial? What is He doing judging anyways, an omniscient being cannot be a judge, for to be one suggests the need for information. Why does omniscient God need to gather data? Omniscience does not require the collecting of information since all that's ever going to be known has already been gathered.

Judgment by an omniscient entity is totally out of the question. Only a dumb mortal can make an omniscient God that keeps a ledger containing an individual's transgressions. Judgment ain't happening as long as God remains omniscient.

 

[Lori_7]

Judgment. There are religions out there that profess this is one of God's passions. Is God making a conscious decision when He puts your soul on trial? What is He doing judging anyways, an omniscient being cannot be a judge, for to be one suggests the need for information. Why does omniscient God need to gather data? Omniscience does not require the collecting of information since all that's ever going to be known has already been gathered.

Judgment by an omniscient entity is totally out of the question. Only a dumb mortal can make an omniscient God that keeps a ledger containing an individual's transgressions. Judgment ain't happening as long as God remains omniscient.

judgement is just a consequence of omniscience. we, as humans, rather obviously, do not know the truth about the far-reaching impacts and motivations of our own lives. judgement is only a realization of that...nothing more and nothing less.

 

[lightgigantic]

Judgment. There are religions out there that profess this is one of God's passions.

Its hard to conceive how anything can have recourse to authority without judgment

Is God making a conscious decision when He puts your soul on trial? What is He doing judging anyways, an omniscient being cannot be a judge, for to be one suggests the need for information.

Perhaps there is an argument for how an absence of information impedes teh act of judgment, but I can't fathom the argument for a proliferation of information doing the same.

Why does omniscient God need to gather data? Omniscience does not require the collecting of information since all that's ever going to be known has already been gathered.

What the hell does the act of judgment have to do with the act of acquiring information. I mean if one already has the info, why would the act of judgment be impeded?

Judgment by an omniscient entity is totally out of the question. Only a dumb mortal can make an omniscient God that keeps a ledger containing an individual's transgressions. Judgment ain't happening as long as God remains omniscient.

Once again, its totally unclear in what weird and wonderful ways you are dressing up omniscience to come to such conclusions ...

 

[Forceman]

No one can comprehend the thought-process of the First Cause. It is this reason why idiots like you and sages like me can go back and forth discussing the reasoning behind God being more like humans than like a Supreme Being, but if you humanists don't believe in a God, then how can you compare him between humans and a Supreme Being that you don't believe in? Wouldn't your argument be the denial of this Supreme Being based on the laws of physics and cosmology?

Knowing that you're stuck in a corner with nothing sensible to "spit out", let me throw this at you. What proof do you have of a non-God created universe based on the model of the Big Bang. Based on randomness (lol), the superstring theory, and the concept of 10 dimensions, there was a preexistence, and what random fluctuation would have caused a shift from condensed matter (that came out of nowhere) into an ever-expanding matter into no where.

"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God"

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

No one can comprehend the thought-process of the First Cause.

Wonderful news....does that mean no more scriptural quotes? The end of religion?

It is this reason why idiots like you and sages like me can go back and forth discussing the reasoning behind God being more like humans than like a Supreme Being, but if you humanists don't believe in a God, then how can you compare him between humans and a Supreme Being that you don't believe in?

Hey, if I'm the idiot then why are you asking me, genius?

Wouldn't your argument be the denial of this Supreme Being based on the laws of physics and cosmology?

You're the sage and I'm the idiot remember, you tell me.

Knowing that you're stuck in a corner with nothing sensible to "spit out", let me throw this at you. What proof do you have of a non-God created universe based on the model of the Big Bang. Based on randomness (lol), the superstring theory, and the concept of 10 dimensions, there was a preexistence, and what random fluctuation would have caused a shift from condensed matter (that came out of nowhere) into an ever-expanding matter into no where.

If God has always existed then He existed (lived) somewhere. Obviously He couldn't create Himself nor could He create a habitat to exist because He had always been. IOW there was a place for Him to exist in and He somehow found Himself alive in any sense you want to imagine if that suits you better.

I personally don't care if God is incomprehensible to even sages like yourself. I would think a genius like you might not want to discuss something no one can understand. Oh I forgot, God also has the knowledge of all things without ever experiencing them. Plus He creates for pleasure, what else can He do? But it all means God is not omniscient and for the savant you are I would have thought you knew by reading the thread title that the topic is omniscience. You like a good theist fell for the God part.

 

[786]

Its understandable why you can't seem to think outside of 'natural' laws which you force upon everything.

Peace be unto you

 

[SnakeLord]

If there is an all knowing entity then what reason would it have to create?

I wouldn't specifically use 'omniscience' as the factor with which to frame the question. Rather 'perfection'.

Nothing exists apart from god, (total absolute perfection). Nothing follows from that. Everything is absolutely undeniably perfect as it is - creation of anything is a worthless concept.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Its understandable why you can't seem to think outside of 'natural' laws which you force upon everything.

Deflection from topic when questions are too tough....a common theist strategy. Be sure to include an ad hom.

Although I must admit, to hear God reduced to some out of this world existence that is totally incomprehensible makes me feel like I'm getting through. Is this the best theists can offer? It's the next best thing to denial of God, a pseudo-atheist approach. He's not real according to this world but He's somewhere beyond our ability to search. You have practically denied God's existence in the material world and I think this is a great step forward for theists to think of God as incomprehensible.

To hear theists offer up this version of God and then try to explain it is amusing. If God is so incomprehensible then anything you say of Him is worthless. Incomprehensible god also means theists don't know anything about god either. Time to throw away your references, they mean nothing if what you say about your God is true.

 

[786]

Deflection from topic when questions are too tough....a common theist strategy. Be sure to include an ad hom.

You can continue quote latin 'ad hom' and other crap. That makes you sound smart, or does it make you feel better?

I wasn't deflecting the topic, I was bringing your responses to attention... if that is deflection then perhaps you should stop posting... And my response was not an answer to any of your questions, it was only an observation I made about your posts.

I've already answered the initial question, and it seems that you have now changed the question... I hope you recognized the stupidity of the question you asked me about the sources.

Peace be unto you

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

How does anyone know if something is incomprehensible? Having knowledge of things no one in this universe will ever understand, doesn't that sound strange? Not to theists, they think that knowing an incomprehensible God is enough proof for His existence. They must understand incomprehension and they'll need to in order to continue to endorse the Almighty.

Of course, this is an oxymoron, no one can know that which is incomprehensible. They can say God is beyond all understanding but what it really shows is that God is slowly being downgraded to alien status, when one can pretend He 's there just to keep up appearances and please fellow believers.

 

[Doreen]

Deflection from topic when questions are too tough....a common theist strategy. Be sure to include an ad hom.

This is an ad hom.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

This is an ad hom.

I disagree. I'm not attacking anyone's character. I'm also not trying to win the argument by demeaning the opponent. Anyway I'm not going to rant on any further about it as to do so would deter from the topic at hand. So if that's what you think then that's what it is.

Also the whole thing goes back to earlier posts in this thread where my adversary 786 used the same tactic.

 

[Doreen]

I disagree. I'm not attacking anyone's character. I'm also not trying to win the argument by demeaning the opponent. Anyway I'm not going to rant on any further about it as to do so would deter from the topic at hand. So if that's what you think then that's what it is.

Also the whole thing goes back to earlier posts in this thread where my adversary 786 used the same tactic.

It was an ad hom. You were focusing on him, saying he was exhibiting a characteristic of the group he is in, rather than focusing on his arguments or lack of them.

I just looked back through the thread and there was some maybe borderline stuff and then he went right for a clear ad hom. So I agree with you.

Sometime I peek in at the end of the thread and miss the context.

 

[786]

Also the whole thing goes back to earlier posts in this thread where my adversary 786 used the same tactic.

'Adversary'? I answered your initial question, then you respond with stupidity manifested in your question to me..... If you don't think so then respond to my response to Baftan where I explained to you why your question was stupid. You skipped that and basically totally changed the question. I don't care what 'trick' that is because I don't care about fancy latin

And then my last response to you was simply me stating an observation- which you misunderstood as a deflection of questions- If you hadn't noticed i wasn't part of these last number of posts with your questions because your first stupid question was enough for me to stay out of the discussion as I could hardly take this topic seriously from that point on.


Peace be unto you

 

[wynn]

How does anyone know if something is incomprehensible?

You do, you silly! :bawl:
It's the basis of all your reasoning.