Why Did Omniscient God Need to Create?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
LOL....you might miss it if he ever says something.
LG is the only theist I can think of that can't wait to tell you nothing about God. He's rare in that respect. So far there has been only unyielded anticipation, thus the suspense continues to build.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Napolean could ask the same thing ...
Well, if you don't want to answer it..
Sorry Swivel
The phenomenon of having a "favorite meal" is a good example that there are more principles of enjoyment or pleasure than just unfamiliarity.
Namely, earlier you and Enmos argued that the only way there can be any enjoyment or pleasure is if we don't know the outcome of an activity, as knowing the outcome would make enjoyment or pleasure impossible.
This is often the case, but not always; having a favorite meal (ie. something that you know how to make and know how it will taste, so there is no unfamiliarity) is a good counterexample.
The application of actually going to see Robert Fulton's ship with a steam engine, or at least have him explain and illustrate in more detail what sort of engine and ship he had in mind.
I create a favorite meal because I need to eat to survive. Yes, taste is one of the senses that could trigger a pleasurable response. However I have no idea how it will turn out, thus I cannot know if it will truly be enjoyable.
LG contends that making a meal is no different than God creating whatever. The difference is, God is supposed to know how it will turn out.Does He know He will be pleased? I'm not sure. In Genesis for instance He steps back, examines and then announces it's good....what? He didn't know?
I think only a god or anyone with no predilections can experience pleasure from creating. The simple pleasure of knowing you did something right. Otherwise omniscient God only derives pleasure from his own egocentricity as there can be no other reasons (excepting those we don't understand
). To omni-god we are nothing more than thoughts brought to life in a 3D diorama.Exactly
Egocentricity, smugness...although when you're the only thing out there you might become a little bored. Even then, you knew you would be bored, then create, replay your thoughts using animate objects, whatever. Even for God, creating seems a mindless pursuit.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
LG claims that humans cannot understand God because God uses logic that humans are incapable of understanding.
So I was asking LG to show me how a mere mortal can check whether or not God has a superior sense of logic.
The Napoleon analogy is flawed and thus irrelevant.
i don't get it, have you just answered you own question?
Oh come on. If you would really be that insecure about the things you do, you would be trembling inside of a white padded cell.
Well, perhaps you actually are, considering the name you chose.
I'm not sure whether this is an accurate rendition of LG's position.
How do you mean this analogy is flawed?
Napoleon thought he applied himself enough to the idea of ships propelled by a steam engine to conclude that such things are impossible. History showed otherwise, namely, steamers were a successful vehicle for quite some time.
Similarly, humans, too, sometimes conclude that they have applied themselves enough to theism to conclude that theism is nonsense. Yet it could, and can, turn out otherwise.
if it appears that I tell you nothing its because the definitions of god you insist on working with are inaccurate at best and contradictory at worst.
Kind of like whining that a mathematician tells you nothing about a square circle or something ....
... I guess it helps you form a solid stance in atheism
:shrug:
actually I am making the point that logic functions in relation to the information fed in to it .... and as it pertains to determining the logic that validates the nature of god and steam ships, there are clear examples of accurate and inaccurate information.
Napoleon thought he was discounting steamships on a logical basis. The real issue is not the logic however but his poor fund of knowledge. Similarly to draw up parameters of god's nature solely on the needs and wants of (conditioned) humans shares a similar parallel to determining the nature of steam ships on the basis of sail boats with a fire under the deck.
IOW having a boast with a steam engine and an entity credited as occupying the position of summum bonum radically changes the logic that one would otherwise apply to them.
Why does that matter? :shrug:
that might explain why you eat but not why you create a favorite meal
Then I sincerely hope you live with someone who's culinary sense is not bordering the psychotic
meh
yet for some reason I assume that your cooking endeavors produce something more akin to your preferences (and abilities of culinary anticipation) than baked beans on toast for 60 continuous days
Which also requires a few key issues of anticipation to come to bear.
I mean if you set out to make a meal and instead make a wardrobe out of stainless steel you still remain without a meal.
Not sure why you insisted on using the world egocentricity rather than egoOtherwise omniscient God only derives pleasure from his own egocentricity as there can be no other reasons (excepting those we don't understand
yet there remains something unique to bringing life to something ... something distinct from say bringing a chair from a pile of wood
because you effectively curtail any meaningful inquiry into the subject .. much like trying to get the low down about square circles from a mathematician
This is a good point. Current knowledge is always misleading to some degree.