Hey God, Why Us Anyway?

[idav]

The closest reason I've ever thought worth considering is entertainment. The angels were bored and implored god to devise some kind of diversion. So god made an ant hill, and, like a kid, from time to time dumped water on it, shoved it around a bit, and inflicted various types of suffering on the poor creatures The angles were delighted, and remain so.

That humans are entertainment makes most sense. That means anything created would be to please head hancho and anything else is just filler. Allows god to be completely soverign and the reason for anything to be is because god wanted it so. I often like the artist depiction, god some crazy artist showing us his passion through his work, still falls under entertainment.

 

[Sir Doom]

That's assuming it would even have such a desire (or such a void) in the first place.

I'd say its more of a conjecture, but whatever you'd like to call it. Are you suggesting that reality simply does not exist? It sort of seems to exist from my perspective. If there is a reality (and there is) and an omnipotent being is responsible for its existence (which it would have to be if such a being existed) then it clearly desired something. There is no other measure for such a being's actions. It obviously isn't shackled by need in even the barest sense of the word. So, what other impetus could it have besides desire for reality to exist? I don't think its very far fetched to assume such a being desires something and given that it only lacks the one thing... It seems logical to assume that one thing is what it desires. I'm open to other possibilities if you have any. Not that I'll hold my breath, mind you.

Out of curiosity, this whole 'God finding mystery through living things' scenario, - is this what you personally believe?

No, this whole 'omnipotence destroys omnipotence thing' is what makes me firmly deny any possibility of an omnipotent God. Basically... if there ever was such a thing, its long gone. I'm applying that thinking to the Biblical God for a purely academic reasons. Its like a puzzle to me.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, this whole 'omnipotence destroys omnipotence thing' is what makes me firmly deny any possibility of an omnipotent God. Basically... if there ever was such a thing, its long gone. I'm applying that thinking to the Biblical God for a purely academic reasons. Its like a puzzle to me.

I guess it depends on what you mean by all powerful.
There has to be a separation from the One that is Source to Image... that is how you 'destroy' the power of God. The ultimate God is Source, but after that there has to be reflections of that, and that is what we are created within. As the consciousness expands, there are more errors.

I recently heard the late Spike Milligan (English comedian) say that he believed in God when he realised that God was not perfect. He made an interesting point... he was ssaying that if a God was perfect, then so would everything else be... but it is not... therefore he is not perfect. But that is not the ultimate God, it is a reflection of him, a reflection of Self. It is a expansion of his own Self, his own consciousness.... explained through the logos... thought.

(has that bored you?)

 

[Robert.Evans]

That humans are entertainment makes most sense. That means anything created would be to please head hancho and anything else is just filler. Allows god to be completely soverign and the reason for anything to be is because god wanted it so. I often like the artist depiction, god some crazy artist showing us his passion through his work, still falls under entertainment.

As we are created within the Image of God, it would certainly explain why we have pets and entertainers, actors etc. But it is all one of the same thing... expanded consciousness.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The bible tells us that all things were created 'for' his only begotten Son:

Colossians 1:15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth,... All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

We know as parents that it is very satisfying to give things to our children... where do you think we get that desire from?

Now I get it. We are the Sims.

 

[Sir Doom]

I guess it depends on what you mean by all powerful.
There has to be a separation from the One that is Source to Image... that is how you 'destroy' the power of God. The ultimate God is Source, but after that there has to be reflections of that, and that is what we are created within. As the consciousness expands, there are more errors.

I wouldn't really look at it as errors. If what I'm saying is true (which obviously isn't necessarily the case) then you have to look at 'imperfection' as intentional. Its not a mistake, its exactly what the being wants. In that sense it's just as perfect with 'errors' as it is without them.

I recently heard the late Spike Milligan (English comedian) say that he believed in God when he realised that God was not perfect. He made an interesting point... he was ssaying that if a God was perfect, then so would everything else be... but it is not... therefore he is not perfect. But that is not the ultimate God, it is a reflection of him, a reflection of Self. It is a expansion of his own Self, his own consciousness.... explained through the logos... thought.

Perfection is highly subjective, though. A perfect cherry pie is still disgusting to anyone who hates cherries or pie in general.

(has that bored you?)

No, these sorts of things are incredibly interesting to me. Walking down the street, taking a shower, scratching my hind-end... I'm always thinking about this 'boring' stuff. I do think I've derailed Skwim's thread enough, though.

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't think its very far fetched to assume such a being desires something and given that it only lacks the one thing... It seems logical to assume that one thing is what it desires.

Kind of remids me of the whole "Can God create something too heavy for him to lift" dilemma.

I'm open to other possibilities if you have any. Not that I'll hold my breath, mind you.

Is that intended as an insult?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I wouldn't really look at it as errors. If what I'm saying is true (which obviously isn't necessarily the case) then you have to look at 'imperfection' as intentional. Its not a mistake, its exactly what the being wants. In that sense it's just as perfect with 'errors' as it is without them.

The consciousness of God ( as we would think of it) did not at one time exist. The awareness grew within it consciousness. That consciousness is everything that came from without of the One. The One is all that there is. There is nothing else. What you get is birth of the One into other forms. They cannot be the same as there can only be one One. But that One (Source) allowed separation, as we do when we allow children out of the house. With that comes error as all is seen in an image. Freewill is given as is seen fit to allow the consciousness to develop... just as a child... so there are mistakes, errors. It is not within the will of the divine that error should happen, but all things emanate from him.

Perfection is highly subjective, though. A perfect cherry pie is still disgusting to anyone who hates cherries or pie in general.

You speak of physical things... which by definition are already flawed. What is complete and perfect is the One that Source. We think of that as God, though the God we speak of is actually a reflection of Self and therefore not complete. Its error comes from us. We create him, as he us.

No, these sorts of things are incredibly interesting to me.

Glad to here it

Walking down the street, taking a shower, scratching my hind-end... I'm always thinking about this 'boring' stuff. I do think I've derailed Skwim's thread enough, though.

I think it is in line with the OP... it is about trying to understand God to understand 'why us'... I think that is acceptable. (but what do I know.. haha)

 

[Robert.Evans]

Kind of remids me of the whole "Can God create something too heavy for him to lift" dilemma.

Off the top of my head, if God is all powerful, he can make something so heavy he can't lift it, but if he is all powerful there is nothing he cannot lift. So my answer is that both would keep increasing. More weight would produce more power, hence more weight lifted. Does that answer it? Eventually it would mean that through the power of thought, it would be pointless going further. Though i think it opens one thought. How does something that is one do that? It can't. It has to divide two, and is part of the first-principle, that of separation. So when there is two, there is one putting o weight and one lifting it. So two heads are better than one, the old adage is true

 

[Sir Doom]

Kind of remids me of the whole "Can God create something too heavy for him to lift" dilemma.

That's not really a dilemma. It just seems like one because a vast majority of people who believe in an almighty creator are unwilling to diminish it in any way (out of fear in most cases). The fact is that God can create an object it can't lift. It just wouldn't be almighty afterwards. Every one of these supposed 'paradoxes' are solved in the same way. An almighty being is well within its own ability to stop being almighty.

Is that intended as an insult?

Not at all, just a snarky way of expressing my expectations. I haven't been able to think of any other answer in 20 years of thinking about it. I don't expect there is another answer.

 

[Aquitaine]

That's not really a dilemma. It just seems like one because a vast majority of people who believe in an almighty creator are unwilling to diminish it in any way (out of fear in most cases). The fact is that God can create an object it can't lift. It just wouldn't be almighty afterwards. Every one of these supposed 'paradoxes' are solved in the same way. An almighty being is well within its own ability to stop being almighty.



Not at all, just a snarky way of expressing my expectations. I haven't been able to think of any other answer in 20 years of thinking about it. I don't expect there is another answer.

But if it can (for example) create an object it can't lift, then it has created itself something that it lacks - so that a sense of mystery is now not the only thing missing. Hypothetically, wouldn't it be able to create all sorts of different impossible challenges for itself - without having mystery left as the only thing to strive for?

 

[idav]

But if it can (for example) create an object it can't lift, then it has created itself something that it lacks - so that a sense of mystery is now not the only thing missing. Hypothetically, wouldn't it be able to create all sorts of different impossible challenges for itself - without having mystery left as the only thing to strive for?

Sure if your all powerful enough then your powerful enough to screw yourself over by making something impossible. Or heck god could give up his power to some other entity. Hopefully they would use the all powerfulness to not be idiots.

 

[Sir Doom]

But if it can (for example) create an object it can't lift, then it has created itself something that it lacks - so that a sense of mystery is now not the only thing missing. Hypothetically, wouldn't it be able to create all sorts of different impossible challenges for itself - without having mystery left as the only thing to strive for?

Creating an object it can't lift doesn't change anything about its perspective.

 

[Aquitaine]

Creating an object it can't lift doesn't change anything about its perspective.

It would be somethig it cannot do - an extra thing on the checklist other than 'mystery'.

What about if it creates a maze it cannot complete, or a puzzle it cannot solve etc?

What I'm tryin to say is that surely a sense of mystery won't be the only last thing on the 'To-Do list' of a being that can create all sorts of impossible obstacles for itself?

 

[idav]

It would be somethig it cannot do - an extra thing on the checklist other than 'mystery'.

What about if it creates a maze it cannot complete, or a puzzle it cannot solve etc?

What I'm tryin to say is that surely a sense of mystery won't be the only last thing on the 'To-Do list' of a being that can create all sorts of impossible obstacles for itself?

I can't see a being literally being so powerful that the entity feels it needs do every single thing it can think of including the contradictory things. Unless this god is insane.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I can't see a being literally being so powerful that the entity feels it needs do every single thing it can think of including the contradictory things. Unless this god is insane.

It begs the question, how would one be able to make a puzzle so complicated that you couldn't solve it? If you were the one that made it, you would know, right? It is only possible if there is separation there. I can't make a puzzle I can't solve... can anyone??

 

[Robert.Evans]

Creating an object it can't lift doesn't change anything about its perspective.

In answer to the heavy object question:

The Source of everything cannot make a puzzle he cannot solve as by definition he wrote it. So anything to do with consciousness he would solve as he wrote it himself.
But then he finds something he cannot do. Interesting!

He finds if he makes physical form, and gives it weight through gravity, he can create something so big he cannot move it, because he can build the weight up pound by pound... just as we can.

But this is conceptual... it is only after the separation has taken place, that we see that Source is still as it was, but the second part (Second Source) now has the ability to make the concept into an action. So it makes an object it cannot move. What it is? It is God. The Rock! And so he sits alone the rock that cannot be moved. We can say then, as the consciousness of God works through fractically, that this then happens many times over through the aeons.

Now I like that!

So God works reflectively, mirroring his own Self.
_____

 

[idav]

It begs the question, how would one be able to make a puzzle so complicated that you couldn't solve it? If you were the one that made it, you would know, right? It is only possible if there is separation there. I can't make a puzzle I can't solve... can anyone??

By not making the puzzle with knowledge. Does all power mean he knows everything or he can know everything if he used the power. I am of the opinion that even if god has the power to something it is completely his choice whther to act it out. So even if god could make a puzzle he couldn't solve. I doubt he would want to put himself in such a predicament. Having power doesnt necessarily entail using the power. God has freedom of choice else what kind of god is it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

By not making the puzzle with knowledge. Does all power mean he knows everything or he can know everything if he used the power. I am of the opinion that even if god has the power to something it is completely his choice whther to act it out. So even if god could make a puzzle he couldn't solve. I doubt he would want to put himself in such a predicament. Having power doesnt necessarily entail using the power. God has freedom of choice else what kind of god is it.

I still think it is impossible for one consciousness to think up something it can't solve. The one that creates it must now how to solve it. It would only work if there was separation: Source to Image; then you have one over the other. One who creates the puzzle and knows the answer, and one who does not.

We must consider that God's own consciousness evolved, and, just as we are created within HIS Image, means as we are, so he is.

So he must have thought of these things as we do. He must have looked at every possible calculation that there was or could ever be and know all things, in every possible way. How else does he know the beginning from the end. He knows how all things will react.

 

[idav]

I still think it is impossible for one consciousness to think up something it can't solve. The one that creates it must now how to solve it. It would only work if there was separation: Source to Image; then you have one over the other. One who creates the puzzle and knows the answer, and one who does not.

We must consider that God's own consciousness evolved, and, just as we are created within HIS Image, means as we are, so he is.

So he must have thought of these things as we do. He must have looked at every possible calculation that there was or could ever be and know all things, in every possible way. How else does he know the beginning from the end. He knows how all things will react.

What your saying is that an all powerful being can't do anything contradictory. I tend to agree. I just don't see gods future as set in stone or god loses his own freedom to choose. God would have to choose not to be able which is within his power and right. With the freedom god could calculate everything and no all potentials but god chooses which things to manifest, it wouldn't work any other way.