Why Did Omniscient God Need to Create?

[PsychoticEpisode]

(BTW, your post didn't explain anything about your previous assertion that there is something about knowing that makes the experience of it redundant)

God's creations only mimic His thoughts. Nothing really changes by having a stage with actors performing something you already know. Therefore the creation was excessive and more than enough.

You can say that He did it for enjoyment but don't you think God would have already known of the forthcoming pleasure?

 

[lightgigantic]

God's creations only mimic His thoughts. Nothing really changes by having a stage with actors performing something you already know. Therefore the creation was excessive and more than enough.

You can say that He did it for enjoyment but don't you think God would have already known of the forthcoming pleasure?

Are the only pleasures you have in life surrounded by an unknowing unfamiliarity?

Or does an element of familiarity render over 90% of such experiences pleasurable?

Or to put it another way, do you find the daily existence of life abhorrent because the discourse that frames it is pre-determined by the social context it appears in?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Are the only pleasures you have in life surrounded by an unknowing familiarity?

Or does an element of familiarity render over 90% of such experiences pleasurable?

If God is replaying His thoughts through us then it doesn't matter how I answer you. My pleasures mean nothing to me in this scenario since they are God's thoughts. I don't know why I even bother typing anything because it doesn't really matter but I guess it gives Him pleasure.

Hi God...having fun?

 

[lightgigantic]

If God is replaying His thoughts through us then it doesn't matter how I answer you

My pleasures mean nothing to me in this scenario since they are God's thoughts. I don't know why I even bother typing anything because it doesn't really matter but I guess it gives Him pleasure.

Hi God...having fun?

if you are mimicking the values of the society that produced you, it doesn't matter how you answer either .....

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

if you are mimicking the values of the society that produced you, it doesn't matter how you answer either .....

In the context that we are merely God thinking vicariously, then yep, I don't give a rat's ass and even that doesn't matter one way or the other.

 

[lightgigantic]

In the context that we are merely God thinking vicariously, then yep, I don't give a rat's ass and even that doesn't matter one way or the other.

why speak of god when you can't even isolate yourself from the social tropes behind your own engineering of selfhood?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

why speak of god when you can't even isolate yourself from the social tropes behind your own engineering of selfhood?

Why call God omniscient when you know He couldn't be. Why lie to yourself?
If I see God in the next few minutes I'm going to ask Him about the 3rd particle He ever made, like where is it now? Then I might ask where the 11,987,005th one is, and so on.

 

[lightgigantic]

Why call God omniscient when you know He couldn't be. Why lie to yourself?

why?
Small wonder that your ruminations on god don't add up since they don't even measure up in terms of society and the individual.

If I see God in the next few minutes I'm going to ask Him about the 3rd particle He ever made, like where is it now? Then I might ask where the 11,987,005th one is, and so on.

Hope he doesn't interrupt your morning tea with Obama,

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

why?
Small wonder that your ruminations on god don't add up since they don't even measure up in terms of society and the individual.

From somebody who is an embodiment of God's thoughts to another the same, who cares what we think?

 

[lightgigantic]

From somebody who is an embodiment of God's thoughts to another the same, who cares what we think?

and once again, why speak of god when you can't even isolate yourself from the social tropes behind your own engineering of selfhood?

 

[scifes]

So what's your definition of "want" with regard to god?
Or maybe, since you're only now quibbling about applying human definitions, the definition as it applies to god is "turquoise" or "15 kilos of steamed haddock".

YOU claimed that he "wanted" to so you must have had some idea of how the word applies.

i'm getting tired of this, again, i went through the trouble of posting something, couldn't you at least read it?
and if you go on and claim it doesn't contain an answer to your question (what i mean by need), i'm gonna have to quote it for you within the quoted box, i mean what kinda spoon feeding works with you people?

Regardless: if god is perfect then he must, by definition, be complete. With no unfulfilled needs, desires or curiosities. And therefore would not have created us.

BINGO!!
what about fulfilled needs, desires or curiosities?:wave:

 

[Dywyddyr]

i'm getting tired of this, again, i went through the trouble of posting something, couldn't you at least read it?

I did.

and if you go on and claim it doesn't contain an answer to your question (what i mean by need), i'm gonna have to quote it for you within the quoted box, i mean what kinda spoon feeding works with you people?

It doesn't.

way to go in using a human everyday dictionary in a philosophical argument about god

Yet you saw fit to use a human word: which has only (so far as we know) a human definition.
I ask again: what did YOU mean by "wants"?

BINGO!!
what about fulfilled needs, desires or curiosities?:wave:

Arrant nonsense: if the need is already fulfilled then there is no requirement to do anything. Obviously.

 

[Sarkus]

lol no man replace "need" with "want", i've been over this with sarkus and have linked it.

Please note that there is a vast difference between "been over this with..." and "shown my point to be correct..."
Yes, we discussed this, but no - you didn't demonstrate your case then nor now.
Want and Need stem from the same lack.
You failed to grasp this when I raised it - and you still fail to grasp it.

I didn't respond to your last post (that you quoted here) because I grew tired of the thread and that line of discussion. Apologies if you took this to be you demonstrating your correctness - because it wasn't.
If anything your last post just confirms that you only look at the surface rather than the necessary detail.

hunger is an imperfection requiring the need food.
so when people need food, do they want the same food?
...

When people hunger that hunger is a single want/need.
What they would prefer to fill that want/need is a separate issue.
If I choose to fill it with a curry it is because I have another want/need for the taste of curry.
If you choose to fill it with vanilla ice-cream it is because you have another want/need for that taste / texture etc.
Naturally we prioritise wants/needs, some being very temporary (the sudden urge for chocolate that dissapears almost as quickly) and others more long lasting.
So how we fulfil the greater need (e.g. hunger) is determined by other needs of lesser priority.

why do people fulfill their needs in different ways? why do they want different things yet the imperfection is the same?

The greater imperfection (hunger) might be the same, but the less imperfection / less-strong need might be different (e.g. need for chocolate rather than bread).

aren't they expressing their individuality? their personality? their selves? their existence? who they are?

Personality is determined, in part or in whole, by our needs. One could argue that every action is carried out due to a need. I am typing as I feel the need to respond to your post, for example. I walk from point A to B to fulfil another need etc.
Since we are all wired differently and have different experiences, our needs are all different, especially on the less-significant / important level.
Yes, we all need food when we're starving... but we also have lesser needs that shape how we fulfil that greater need. It is from these lesser needs that one could argue our personality is built and expresses itself.

can't one express who is without having a need? show how he is different without answering for an imperfection? making a choice because he explicitly wants to, with 0% needing to?

No.
If he has no needs - then why the need to show who he is, or to show how he is different?

can't a perfect being EXIST?
why? is it because we haven't seen one?
is it because we haven't BECOME one?

We are all perfect.
You are perfectly you.
I am perfectly me.
We are already perfect for who we are.

You may be looking at perfection as a being with perfect eyesight, perfect teeth, perfect happiness, perfect X, Y, Z.
This sort of "perfect" being cannot exist - quite simply 'cos there are contradictory values which he would have to be perfect in - or else it would require someone to subjectively choose between the values and determine "which is better". Is a being with "32 perfect teeth" better than a being with "30 perfect teeth"? Or a being with no teeth?

This sort of perfection is meaningless - until you strip away all contradictory values. At that point you are left with a perfect being... with no values... nothingness.

The other sort of perfection is whether the object is perfect for what it is.
A spanner is perfect for an object called a spanner that does what a spanner does.
A human is perfect in the way that it does what humans are supposed to do.
I am perfect in that I act, look and behave perfectly in line with how I am supposed to.
You are perfect as you act, look, behave perfectly as you are supposed to.

if your brain fails to make one up, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Last question is a strawman - seeking to raise an argument that has not been made. Please refrain from such.


However, please bear in mind that this is in response to the idea of a perfect being - not merely an omniscient entity (per the thread title) - so may be somewhat off-topic.

 

[scifes]

I did.


It doesn't.

Yet you saw fit to use a human word: which has only (so far as we know) a human definition.
I ask again: what did YOU mean by "wants"?

wants are our personality coating of our needs.

Arrant nonsense: if the need is already fulfilled then there is no requirement to do anything. Obviously.

arrant nonsense: is "fulfilled" a verb?
don't verbs "happen"?

 

[Dywyddyr]

wants are our personality coating of our needs.

In other words you're now claiming you misused the word?

arrant nonsense: is "fulfilled" a verb?

No, it's an adjective.

Adj. 1. fulfilled - completed to perfection

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fulfilled
In other words before one is fulfilled one is incomplete/ unsatisfied/ NOT perfect.

don't verbs "happen"?

What's your point?
If one is fulfilled then the condition is already satisfied: in other words there was a need/ want/ something missing and now it no longer is.
Therefore if one is already fulfilled that need does not require any action.
Or are you back to claiming that god did have a need/ want (and was therefore incomplete and not perfect) but is now?

 

[scifes]

In other words you're now claiming you misused the word?

you asked what i meant by it..?!

No, it's an adjective.

lol oops :shy:, an american should never quarrel with an englishman when it comes to grammar eh?

 

[scifes]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fulfilled
In other words before one is fulfilled one is incomplete/ unsatisfied/ NOT perfect.

hmm..yes..
but here you have the problem of "before" with an entity out of time..
can't a need come to existence AFTER it's fullfilment?

THAT'S IT!!

1-god can do anything and has always been so.
2-god gets (develops) a need(in a matter of speaking) which he can fulfill by his ability to do anything.
3-god fulfills that need, i.e "does something"..

wow, whaddya think?
2 is my definition to "want".
and 2 and 3 are interchangeable in order(to help you a bit)

so the only forms of needs god has are fulfilled needs, when he stops fulfilling those needs the needs no longer exist, as the needs start existing with him setting their fulfillment in action..can't you see?:xctd:

um i said something similar before, i'll quote it:

And the opposite of "table" is...?

many things;
it's the opposite of nothingness, because it's something.
if you eat on it, and not the floor, it's the opposite of the floor.
when you put things on it, yet you put people on chairs, it is the opposite of chair.
when you eat food, and not it, it's the opposite of food.
it is a solid, the opposite of liquid.

and so on, also, "table" may not be the total opposite of those things, but i mentioned "or somewhere in between"..

IOW, you need points of reference to define a certain point.

take a point x, any other point y is either exactly on x, hence x=y, or it is opposite to x, i.e, NOT x, these are the only two choices, the variation can then be in distance and direction.

how can you define a perfect point, without using imperfect points as reference points sarkus?

lol, sarkus again, hope he didn't neglect replying to this because i bored him out of it too..

What's your point?
If one is fulfilled then the condition is already satisfied: in other words there was a need/ want/ something missing and now it no longer is.

ok, one is fulfilled, he does nothing.
along the away a need comes, he can fulfill it, so he fulfills it.
a perfect being does something to fulfill needs..
it's like saying "if x=0 then any mathematical operation done on it will make it cease being=0"
"what about adding 2 and subtracting 2? , we did an operation but didn't move from our place (except for a theoretically infinitesimal short time)"
it's like how nothingness can be seperated to particles and anti-particles[??]

Therefore if one is already fulfilled that need does not require any action.

my point is: the underlined required an action.

Or are you back to claiming that god did have a need/ want (and was therefore incomplete and not perfect) but is now?

a- you have a major "order" problem in your logic which requires your attention.
b- i think what i'm proposing does things which become needed by him doing them(if that makes any sense), which you'll answer to by no

 

[Dywyddyr]

you asked what i meant by it..?!

And when someone gave you a definition of that word you claimed that the definition didn't apply.
So what did you mean?

 

[Dywyddyr]

hmm..yes..
but here you have the problem of "before" with an entity out of time..
can't a need come to existence AFTER it's fullfilment?

Like getting hungry some time after you've eaten?
Certainly, but then we're back to the slight problem that anyone/ thing with a need is lacking in something, and is therefore incomplete and therefore not perfect.

1-god can do anything and has always been so.
2-god gets (develops) a need(in a matter of speaking) which he can fulfill by his ability to do anything.
3-god fulfills that need, i.e "does something"..

If god has a need he is incomplete and therefore not perfect.

so the only forms of needs god has are fulfilled needs, when he stops fulfilling those needs the needs no longer exist, as the needs start existing with him setting their fulfillment in action..can't you see?:xctd:

If something is fulfilled it is, by definition, no longer a need.
You're babbling.

ok, one is fulfilled, he does nothing.
along the away a need comes, he can fulfill it, so he fulfills it.
a perfect being does something to fulfill needs..

So you think god cycles from perfect to imperfect and back again?

a- you have a major "order" problem in your logic which requires your attention.

Wrong. learn to think before responding.

b- i think what i'm proposing does things which become needed by him doing them(if that makes any sense), which you'll answer to by no

Correct: the answer is "no".
See above. Your "solution" denies that god is perfect. Now me, personally, I'm quite happy to go along with that idea, but I think you'll find quite a few people (and religions) will be upset at you for even suggesting it.

 

[scifes]

You're babbling.

i agree, but i won't judge myself till i understand exactly what i mean..

you..you just reply anyway:shrug: