Why Did Omniscient God Need to Create?

[scifes]

Like getting hungry some time after you've eaten?

nope, here you feel hungry*, you eat*, then you feel hungry**, you eat**.
i'm not talking about eating*, then feeling hungry**..
am talking about eating*, then "feeling hungry"*.. if your brain is flexible enough to imagine that happening almost spontaneously
it's like, you never were hungry, but it came along with eating that food, to prevent it from being meaningless, and hence, be perfect AND able of doing actions.

i'm just exploring how a truly perfect entity can't possibly be unable to do anything, that sounds stupid.
it's an imperfection to be unable to do anything without going down to imperfection first.

 

[Dywyddyr]

if your brain is flexible enough to imagine that happening almost spontaneously

I think you mean simultaneously.
Regardless: having a need means you are not complete.

it's like, you never were hungry, but it came along with eating that food, to prevent it from being meaningless, and hence, be perfect AND able of doing actions.

Nope, you're inventing nonsense.

i'm just exploring how a truly perfect entity can't possibly be unable to do anything, that sounds stupid.

Who said "can't"? The point is there would be no need.

it's an imperfection to be unable to do anything without going down to imperfection first.

Nope: perfect means complete - nothing left to do.

 

[scifes]

I think you mean simultaneously.
Regardless: having a need means you are not complete.

no i had that in mind, spontaneous seemed more fitting(even though i just had to check it in a dictionary to be sure)

Nope, you're inventing nonsense.

lol, you're rejecting what you don't like. come on man, go back to the old days where everything was possible, where you believed in everything said to you can happen, days in which you didn't know enough to seal something as impossible, days where there were unlimited possibilities..

Who said "can't"? The point is there would be no need.

doing something useless is imperfect, something a bit off scope for a perfect being.

Nope: perfect means complete - nothing left to do.

lol poor perfect beings then..
so much for perfection eh?

 

[Randwolf]

If they were really lucky they might have got one of these

Out of sheer curiosity, what in the h**l was that a pic of? What does it do? I might want one for my Grandkids, but what is it?

 

[lightgigantic]

Out of sheer curiosity, what in the h**l was that a pic of? What does it do? I might want one for my Grandkids, but what is it?

http://www.myaircannons.com/snowballblaster.html

 

[Randwolf]

http://www.myaircannons.com/snowballblaster.html

Thanks, I think. Now all I have to do is keep the kids from seeing this, and I will be cool...

 

[Enmos]

how does an entity that is prohibited from certain actions establish themselves as capable of certain actions?

You mean it's illogical?

Maybe they work better in pneumatic snow ball cannons

Which are also sad. And I very much doubt they would do better than regular snowballs.

 

[Enmos]

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

Nope, because that means that they once were unfulfilled.

 

[Enmos]

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)

:crazy:

 

[scifes]

Nope, because that means that they once were unfulfilled.

if they have to take turns at happening (need and fulfillment) then yes.

:crazy:

if you're eternally full, you'll never enjoy food.
if you feel hunger only when you put food in your mouth, won't that be more perfect?
:idea:

edit: i.e needs exist for you just to justify or give meaning to your actions.. but you never experience them independent of their fulfillment.

 

[Enmos]

if they have to take turns at happening (need and fulfillment) then yes.

Then you are contradiction the bible/quran/whatever.

if you're eternally full, you'll never enjoy food.

I don't see how this is relevant.

if you feel hunger only when you put food in your mouth, won't that be more perfect?
:idea:

Uh, no.

edit: i.e needs exist for you just to justify or give meaning to your actions.. but you never experience them independent of their fulfillment.

Nonsense. Needs exist because they help you survive. They are like alarm bells going off, they prompt you to take care of yourself.
Surely God is beyond that.

 

[wynn]

yet I don't under-estimate the pleasure in making them

And you assess the nature of this pleasure merely by observing people on photographs/videos who make snowballs?

Yes. Or we have to accept that God is an incomprehensible mystic.

I don't understand

(I think I should have used the word "incomprehendable" - 'cannot be understood by others'.)

Enmos and some others are arguing that something that can't/won't create is somehow superior, on the notion that only an imperfect or needy and non-omniscient being would create at all - that the only pleasures anyone can have in life are those surrounded by an unknowing unfamiliarity.

If this is the only way we can understand pleasure, then the only way to explain why God creates anyway (and still finds it pleasurable, while retaining all His omni), is that He is a mystic that humans cannot comprehend.

Human pleasure and God's pleasure seem to be either 1. incomparable, or 2. the same, in which case God loses His omni and isn't God anymore and doesn't exist, or 3. only partly comparable, which requires further explaining, or 4. something else altogether.

Personally, I don't understand why God (the highest instance)would wish to reciprocate with other living entities (lesser instances).
Ordinarily, those who are in some higher instance do not really wish to reciprocate with those in a lesser one. So why would God?

what's an experience of mystical teeth gritting over an everyday trouble?

If I need to cook lunch, I need ingredients, pots, electricity/gas and such, not a pseudo-metaphysical lecture on cooking.

actually our usual experience of everyday life is that the thrill lies in reciprocation. Even the wildest things people do in the name of fun are meaningless unless they have others to display it to or tell about it.

But such a view is often considered selfish, at least where I come from.

We are expected to "grow up" and keep our personal stuff to ourselves. Chit-chatting is for teenage girls and old ladies, while proper people "just do it" and don't tell anyone about it, as that would be bragging, so immature.

Reciprocation floats everyone's boat.

I suppose deep down, this is what everyone wants. But how many are comfortable with stating it and pursuing it?

 

[Sarkus]

(I think I should have used the word "incomprehendable" - 'cannot be understood by others'.)

Incomprehensible is correct for the meaning you wanted.
Incomprehendable is not, afaik, a valid Scrabble word.

It might be used as an alternative to incomprehensible but only by people who don't know the correct word.

 

[draqon]

Omniscient God needed to create because that is how he became an omniscient God.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Omniscient God needed to create because that is how he became an omniscient God.

So you're claiming (contrary to most religions that I know of) that god wasn't omniscient to start with?
On the other hand positing that he created us before he knew what he was doing does explain a lot.

 

[draqon]

So you're claiming (contrary to most religions that I know of) that god wasn't omniscient to start with?
On the other hand positing that he created us before he knew what he was doing does explain a lot.

I am claiming that is how the cycle started of universe. From an end rose beginning.

 

[lightgigantic]

And you assess the nature of this pleasure merely by observing people on photographs/videos who make snowballs?

sure
literally tons of them get made every winter, and its not like they get paid for it.

(I think I should have used the word "incomprehendable" - 'cannot be understood by others'.)

Enmos and some others are arguing that something that can't/won't create is somehow superior, on the notion that only an imperfect or needy and non-omniscient being would create at all - that the only pleasures anyone can have in life are those surrounded by an unknowing unfamiliarity.

If this is the only way we can understand pleasure, then the only way to explain why God creates anyway (and still finds it pleasurable, while retaining all His omni), is that He is a mystic that humans cannot comprehend.

Human pleasure and God's pleasure seem to be either 1. incomparable, or 2. the same, in which case God loses His omni and isn't God anymore and doesn't exist, or 3. only partly comparable, which requires further explaining, or 4. something else altogether.

I think this analysis of pleasure is off the mark since it actually occurs within the jurisdiction of reciprocation. One can have all the unknowing familiarity they want, but if its in isolation it is sub-standard.

Personally I think the alternative understanding of pleasure is arrived at through a hyper-sensitivity to empiricism and its ever demanding requirement for unknowingness ... however even that requires a relevant community for reciprocation in order to be valid.

Personally, I don't understand why God (the highest instance)would wish to reciprocate with other living entities (lesser instances).

Its only lesser in terms of potency , not nature. What is it about the acquisition of potency that prohibits one from reciprocation?
(in the material world, acquisition of potency tends to draw out envy inothers and pride within one's self, but that's only because one stands to lose it at the hands of time)

Ordinarily, those who are in some higher instance do not really wish to reciprocate with those in a lesser one. So why would God?

Because unlike others, god is not fixated on retaining his potency (since he doesn't even have the possibility of losing it, unlike others). IOW its the nature of god not to come under the grip of illusion this world is famous for

If I need to cook lunch, I need ingredients, pots, electricity/gas and such, not a pseudo-metaphysical lecture on cooking.

I wasn't aware that metaphysics rendered the act of cooking impossible

But such a view is often considered selfish, at least where I come from.

We are expected to "grow up" and keep our personal stuff to ourselves. Chit-chatting is for teenage girls and old ladies, while proper people "just do it" and don't tell anyone about it, as that would be bragging, so immature.

Reciprocation takes many different flavours.
For instance there is a certain mellow typical to friendship that distinguishes it from conjugal affairs which again distinguishes it from mere servitude

I suppose deep down, this is what everyone wants. But how many are comfortable with stating it and pursuing it?

I think practically everyone is dead set on pursuing it since their minds words and actions are tied to the affairs of their co-workers, partners and families 24/7

 

[lightgigantic]

You mean it's illogical?

well yeah, but maybe more absurd than illogical

Kind of like saying a person can only prove themself as multi billionaire if they live in a card board box and don't buy anything

Which are also sad. And I very much doubt they would do better than regular snowballs.

Ethics and design live in the same street

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

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

I will not be fooled by this attempt to change the subject back to me as I have seen you do several times. I am a declared atheist. I don't speak of God ever. If it sounds like it then you as a theist must disregard it. What everybody is waiting for is for you to start speaking of Him, so quit fucking around and give us some good God candy to chew on. Maybe you can start by telling us why it makes sense to create something when you know it won't be any different than just after you dreamed it. God doesn't need prototypes, does He?

 

[wynn]

And you assess the nature of this pleasure merely by observing people on photographs/videos who make snowballs?

sure
literally tons of them get made every winter, and its not like they get paid for it.

I see you trust other people's experience and your interpretation of it.
How far does this go? Is there a point where you won't settle for other people's experience and your interpretation of it, and will instead demand to experience it yourself, or nothing?
What do you do if you want to experience something, but are not able to (not within a foreseeable time)?

Ordinarily, those who are in some higher instance do not really wish to reciprocate with those in a lesser one. So why would God?

Because unlike others, god is not fixated on retaining his potency (since he doesn't even have the possibility of losing it, unlike others). IOW its the nature of god not to come under the grip of illusion this world is famous for

Allright, that makes sense.

"Fixated on retaining one's potency" - I know this from sports, for example. In order to stay fit, I had to train very hard, it occupied my mind a lot, and I was always very selective whom I associated with in terms of sports, and on what terms. There is that peculiar tendency to keep certain information to oneself, such as titles of books that deal with explaining some training or dieting principles. Also very selective about whom I would train or compete with.
Of course, the better one gets, the more one is willing to share and be flexible, but there always seem to be limits to this.


However, I can't imagine ever being completely free from such worries, or how can there be an exchange between people that is free from such worries.

If I need to cook lunch, I need ingredients, pots, electricity/gas and such, not a pseudo-metaphysical lecture on cooking.

I wasn't aware that metaphysics rendered the act of cooking impossible

I meant that people who are into mystic have the tendency to give pseudo-metaphysical lectures when something practical or doable is needed. They'll give you one shoe when you need two, and if you point this out, they'll pontificate on how one shoe is enough.
(I'm using the word "mystic" in a very broad sense.)