Let's think this through ... God

He means this:

[b]

Yes, you could argue this; but my point above involves taking these generally abstract, scholastic assessments of the relationship between an omniscient God and mere mortals, and situating it out in the world of actual human interactions.

Omniscient: having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

To argue then that an all-knowing God does not know whether Jane will abort or not about her unborn baby, or that Jack will or will not report her to the authorities, seems to ascribe the meaning of the word “omniscient” to God as but one more manifestation of His “mysterious ways”. And, of course, the faithful can always fall back on that to rationalize anything with respect to Him.

Similarly if a bat could only be as God intended it to be how could this omniscient God not know what it is like to be a bat? It is as though this all-powerful entity set life itself into motion such that it would evolve on its own into minds [ours] able to probe these questions self-consciously.

In other words, whatever that means.

And [thus] we are still back to square one: connecting all of these endless “intellectual” and “theoretical” speculations to an actual extant God.

A God, the God, your God.

And not theirs.

Or, sure, maybe it’s just me. My inability to reconcile the idea of an omniscient God able to be the “perfect predictor” with mere mortals able to choose behaviors that would be both “free” and wholly [necessarily] in sync with God’s prediction of what it will be.

And what then is the limit to that which mortals are able to think, feel and behave autonomously?

Are they able to prove the existence of God if God does not want His existence able to be proven? Are they able to teach themselves to behave in such a manner that God is not aware of it? Can they discover how to trick God? To defy God with impunity?

As long as there is a gap between what mere mortals think, feel and do and God’s awareness of this, it would seem to make this relationship considerably more problematic.

For example, am I “free” to not believe in God? Or, as some Christians [among others] insists, “free” or not, will my refusal [inability] to accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior result [necessarily] in eternal damnation?

And [of course] always this: with so much at stake how/why is it that God makes answering these crucial questions so seemingly elusive?[/b]

What say you, Uccisore?

He desperately WANTS for the world to be a better place. When he encounters one of those apparently making it worse despite his efforts to prevent it, his frustration turns to rage.

Sounds immature

Around here, who doesn’t?

Uccisore made my point more than anyone, and because of James’ comment to defend Uccisore, I also have had a really revealing look into James’ psychology.

When I had that post about not being able to do anything without hurting anyone, it’s not only perfectly logical, it’s also perfectly emotional …

What this reveals is that Uccisore and James have logical and emotional handicaps with real world consequences.

Uccisore blew it off by saying “you need to redefine hurt then”. Everyone who is sensitive knows that emotional pain is worse than physical pain, but apparently Uccisore doesn’t … Speaks volumes, upon volumes , upon volumes.

Obviously the creator would know it created a no win situation.

We can, like Uccisore, go on for days about what the creator doesn’t know, but this is so blatant and obvious, that it defies any possible explanation how bad can be good. Unless you as a human being, are bad to the core.

What about deism? In deism God exists but doesn’t inter-mingle in the Universe’s affairs. I am a variant of deism, specifically panendeism - which states that there is a God inside the Universe (but the Universe itself) that created the Universe but is natural and doesn’t or can’t interfere with our mortal affairs.

I also believe in henotheism. In my conception of henotheism, there are things inside the Universe that “glue” everything itself. I’m not talking about the Universal natural however, like the higgs-boson particle, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, or electromagnetism. I’m talking about the physical things that arose from those forces. Stars, galactic black holes, superclusters, that allows the existence of life and all we see fit in the Universe. This is why I venerate the Sun, for it directly involved for everything the Earth has.

So, in my conceptions of God, one God exists and there are many deities also inside the Universe. They are all very real.

What do you say to this?

Mackerni,

To that, I say simply, it is impossible to create the whole universe and not have an effect upon it.

Actually, you are the only effect upon it…

We’re talking about zero point here, not human creations.

What if the multiverse created the Universe, developed the natural forces of which it would work from, but then just after its creation left it to its own?

To that, I think you are trying to play word games.

Zero point creation would create not only the multiverse, but it’s ability to converge to a universe.

Remember, in zero point creation, you created everything!! Not just something.

What is"zero point" creation?

Creation ex nihilo, you created something that has never been before.

You do realize that deists believe that God did create everything inside the Universe, but left it alone to its own accord after it was made, right? Zero-point creationism still doesn’t mean the deity is directly personal in any way, just that it had a hand in the creation of the Universe. Annddd … believing in panendeism means that something natural created the Universe, not something that resembles an Abrahamic-God.

Let’s just agree to disagree, alright?

Is God “unnatural”?

The Abrahamic-God seems unnatural to me. I can’t see a God that is alive, when all signs point to entropy throughout the Universe.

My deities and God are completely natural.

As George Carlin said in one his specials, “I can actually see the Sun.”

What does entropy have to do with it?

I can’t see air. I’ve never seen an electron.

Why would the God of the Bible create a Universe that is eventually is going to decay into near-nothingness? Or the fact that most planets have virtually no life on them? A Biblical-God wouldn’t do that, therefore that God couldn’t exist. (I agree with the thread-creator, but I phrased it differently.) Also see the problem of evil (if God created existence with evil he cannot be benevolent and if he can’t abolish evil he cannot be omnipotent) and the problem of potency (could God create something that even it couldn’t move?). My solutions to those problems is as such: evil is ultimately caused by entropy. Nature is naturally (pun intended) more evil than good, but we are the beacon of light from a vast space of entropy and nothingness. As far as the problem with potency, there are only certain natural forces that deities and God can perform. The question of whether God (or deities) could move something that they created to not be able to move doesn’t really apply to them.

But did I ever claim that air or elections are God?

This is the argument : if I was god, then I wouldn’t things that way. Therefore, god does not exist.

But entropy is not evil. And I don’t see how it could be said to cause evil.

Yeah, I agree with that.

Oh, come on. Carlin was saying that God doesn’t exist because we can’t see God … or some variation on that idea.

entropy
noun
1.
Thermodynamics.
(on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
(in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S.
2.
(in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3.
(in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death)
4.
a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.

extropy
noun
the theory that cultural and technological development will expand indefinitely and in an orderly progressive manner throughout the universe, the tendency of systems to grow more organized; also written Extropy

Extropy cannot exist without entropy, but if only entropy existed there would be no chance of life, creation, or organized society. I consider entropy evil because it causes chaos and reduces the potential of our society.

But he was talking about the Abrahamic-God, not the Sun. He also said he worships, but doesn’t pray to the Sun. In a sense he treats the Sun like a deity by that regard.

I also have access to a dictionary.

entropy-extropy
Duality of the universe.

Do you still not understand my point?

He can’t see the Abrahamic God … so what? Lots of things which exist cannot be directly seen.

But they can be observed. You assume there is air because you feel wind when you go outside. The idea of an atom and the electron was hypothesized since the days of Plato. I mean, there’s even machines out there that supposedly can measure if there is a ghost present in the room. (But that’s not my point.)

My point is, the Abrahamic God has never been observed. People hearing voices in their head, writing it down on tablets, and then forcing people to turn on a dime doesn’t work in the long run.

Also, God has changed his mind … a lot. Newer religions (that aren’t cults) picture God as more progressive and use modern science to back up their claims - something that older religions really can’t do. A subjective God to me doesn’t sound like a God at all. It is possible that a God could change their mind about the nature of reality, but whatever reality that may be always fits with the groups that have the most power. Coincidence? I think not.