Only one possible reason for the universe?

[viole]

The Bible calls Adam the "son of God." (Luke 3:38) Angels are likewise called "sons of God." (Job 38:7) As a loving father teaches and nurture his children, I believe Jehovah is a loving Father who cares deeply for his creation. Despite man's fall into sin and rebellion against God, Jehovah lovingly invites us to draw close to him. (James 4:8) He does not force anyone to serve him, but he richly rewards those who do so because they love God. (Hebrews 11:6)

That would entail that Jesus is Adam's (and Satan's) brother. Is that right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[NulliuSINverba]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so:

So Keira Knightly could exist?

... to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

I don't know how you could claim to know that as a fact.

Perhaps the universe was just a bit of marginal doodling and the creator being is simply too arrogant to admit it?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The Bible calls Adam the "son of God." (Luke 3:38) Angels are likewise called "sons of God." (Job 38:7) As a loving father teaches and nurture his children, I believe Jehovah is a loving Father who cares deeply for his creation.

I actually think I believe that more deeply than you do, because the kind of love it takes to do what I'm talking about, is the ultimate tough love. But most don't understand what it takes for an omnipotent God to give we mortals free will, and what it takes to maintain it--absolute freedom from God's influence.

If you love something set it free.
If it returns to you, it's yours.
If not, it never was.
~~Johnathan Livingston Seagull

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So Keira Knightly could exist?



I don't know how you could claim to know that as a fact.

Perhaps the universe was just a bit of marginal doodling and the creator being is simply too arrogant to admit it?

There's not even any reasonable evidence that God exists, so I can hardly claim anything about God as a fact. I'm just saying that if It does, It could do anything ELSE instantly. Why not this? Because we, with our free will, are the only reason God has to hide any evidence of Itself from us behind 13 billion years and a Big Bang.

And what's your point about Keira? We all know she couldn't be a goddess no matter how much she might look like one, because there can only be One God--which is necessarily a gender neutral term, which is why I refer to God as It.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Okay, there are multiple issues with your op. 1. There is no reason to believe that a creator only created this universe to create creatures with moral free will. As has already been said, there are multiple other reasons. 2. Even if a creator did create this universe to create creatures with a moral free will, it doesn't stand to reason that it was the only reason said creator did so. 3. People don't even agree whether or not we humans actually have free will. There are many who believe we don't, in any meaningful sense. 4. This wasn't in your op, but later you respond to someone about how humans have genes that drive them to reproduce. Doesn't this kind of nullify the idea that we have free will? How can you claim that there is a part of us driving us to do certain things, and then say we have free will?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

There is no supernatural consciousness, there is no creator, there is no free-will, actually there is no creation as well. What we perceive is an illusion.

 

[psychoslice]

There is no supernatural consciousness, there is no creator, there is no free-will, actually there is no creation as well. What we perceive is an illusion.

I agree.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Okay, there are multiple issues with your op. 1. There is no reason to believe that a creator only created this universe to create creatures with moral free will. As has already been said, there are multiple other reasons. 2. Even if a creator did create this universe to create creatures with a moral free will, it doesn't stand to reason that it was the only reason said creator did so.

#2 basically repeats #1. As I've mentioned already, and no one I've noticed has offered one up, but I can't think of any other purpose that an omnipotent God couldn't have accomplished it immediately. If I missed it, could you please be specific. Why 13 billion years with no sign of any revelation or miracle except for the hearsay of fallible men? And if you should insist on appealing to hearsay only faith, and can't provide any such evidence, you abandon the possibility of any reasoning behind your argument.

3. People don't even agree whether or not we humans actually have free will. There are many who believe we don't, in any meaningful sense.

Remember I'm talking about moral free will. Looking around the world and through history, we see continual instances of profound evil and profound good. What kind of programming produces such disparate, contradictory results? It's enough to show that the burden of proof is on determinism, or fate or any other form of predestination. And if we could, all it would do would be to show that there is no purpose at all, that we are only puppets in the theater of the absurd. This would be nothing but a cosmic gotcha.

4. This wasn't in your op, but later you respond to someone about how humans have genes that drive them to reproduce. Doesn't this kind of nullify the idea that we have free will? How can you claim that there is a part of us driving us to do certain things, and then say we have free will?

And neither can we avoid the law of gravity or other physical compulsions. though many of them, like reproducing, we can choose not to do, but that isn't a moral choice. Again, this is moral free will. We can choose to do good or evil to each other without divine influence. Our moral choices, our life choices, are ours and ours alone--or, as I say, this is all just a mean joke.

There is no supernatural consciousness, there is no creator, there is no free-will, actually there is no creation as well. What we perceive is an illusion.

I agree.

If so, whose illusion is it? An illusion requires a source, an illusionist. If you're going to resort to such solipsism, then you and the whole universe would have to be the figment of my imagination. Otherwise there would be chaos beyond comprehension with all the billions of minds imagining things at once. And I know that I think, I have the will to choose, therefore (at least) I am; and I cannot be the figment of another's imagination. If there is no creation, then there is no universal, immutable natural law--but there is. If the moon is an illusion, then why do the tides follow it's motion for all to see. Would you care to anchor yourself on the edge of a beach at low tide, and then survive telling yourself over and over, "it's an illusion"? I'd pay to see that. But according to you, I would only have to imagine you doing it, and for nothing. I'd stay away from beaches if I were you.....if you can, or your bathtub for that matter.

But don't worry, sleep tight, you're on your own.
You're welcome.

Uh oh, y'all look out, I feel a nap coming on. Oh, silly me, how could I forget--y'all just disappear when I go to sleep. Night night.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh oh, y'all look out, I feel a nap coming on. Oh, silly me, how could I forget - y'all just disappear when I go to sleep. Night night.

That reminds me of a verse in Bhagwat Gita where Lord Krishna comments on this. Please allow me to reproduce the verse:

"Vāsāḿsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya, navāni gṛahṇāti naro 'parāṇi;
tathā śarīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇāny, anyāni saḿyāti navāni dehī." Bhagawat Gita 2.22

Just as a person puts on new garments, giving up old and torn ones, giving up the old and torn bodies, (what constitutes us) similarly accepts new bodies.

Nothing disappears. All of it remains here only. Only what constitutes us joins a million living and non-living things.things, it is only a change in form.

 

[rusra02]

That would entail that Jesus is Adam's (and Satan's) brother. Is that right?

Ciao

- viole

At one time, the Angel later termed Satan (resister) and Devil (slanderer) had that brotherly relationship with Jesus. Of course, that ended with Satan's evil rebellion.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That reminds me of a verse in Bhagwat Gita where Lord Krishna comments on this. Please allow me to reproduce the verse:

"Vāsāḿsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya, navāni gṛahṇāti naro 'parāṇi;
tathā śarīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇāny, anyāni saḿyāti navāni dehī." Bhagawat Gita 2.22

Just as a person puts on new garments, giving up old and torn ones, giving up the old and torn bodies, (what constitutes us) similarly accepts new bodies.

Nothing disappears. All of it remains here only. Only what constitutes us joins a million living and non-living things.things, it is only a change in form.

Yes, but mine was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@ ThePainefulTruth

If so, whose illusion is it? (It is the illusion of an illusion. Firstly, we are illusions. What we perceive also is an illusion)
An illusion requires a source, an illusionist. (The existence of what constitutes all things in the universe (Brahman) causes the illusion)
If you're going to resort to such solipsism, then you and the whole universe would have to be the figment of my imagination. (No, this is not solipsism. At the back of all this some thing (Brahman exists)
Otherwise there would be chaos beyond comprehension with all the billions of minds imagining things at once. (There is no chaos. The billions of minds imagine different things. No two imaginations are the same)
And I know that I think, I have the will to choose, therefore (at least) I am; and I cannot be the figment of another's imagination. (Certainly some thing is there, but it may not be what you think exists)
If there is no creation, then there is no universal, immutable natural law - but there is. (It is the natural property of what exists, which you think as a universal, immutable natural law)
If the moon is an illusion, then why do the tides follow its motion for all to see. (Moon is but a collection of atoms and so is the ocean. And atoms are nothing but fluctuations of energy. You see them as the Moon and the tide)
Would you care to anchor yourself on the edge of a beach at low tide, and then survive telling yourself over and over, "it's an illusion"? I'd pay to see that. (What constitutes me will survive, every atom of my body will survive. Nothing is going to be lost. Only perhaps the form will change)

But according to you, I would only have to imagine you doing it, and for nothing. I'd stay away from beaches if I were you .. if you can, or your bathtub for that matter. (Find discrepancies in my statements when you have had your nap and when you have time. I think we are having an interesting discussion. I will appreciate your comments. Thanks)

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So, declarative belief is alive and well.

 

[Demonslayer]

If so, whose illusion is it? An illusion requires a source, an illusionist

I don't think this is true. A mirage has no illusionist.

 

[Thief]

just stop by to interject.......

It's difficult to say.... I AM!....with no evidence.

So.... Let there be light!

Talking to yourself about how clever you are ...to your own Echo....
would be amusing, for a while....but...

So you install spirit in a physical form (Man) just to see what comes of it.

 

[Demonslayer]

It's difficult to say.... I AM!....with no evidence.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If so, whose illusion is it? An illusion requires a source, an illusionist

I don't think this is true. A mirage has no illusionist.

Neither is it an illusion. It's a natural phenomenon.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

just stop by to interject.......

It's difficult to say.... I AM!....with no evidence.

So.... Let there be light!

Talking to yourself about how clever you are ...to your own Echo....
would be amusing, for a while....but...

So you install spirit in a physical form (Man) just to see what comes of it.

?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, declarative belief is alive and well.

Not really. There is a catch. If tomorrow science proves that the universe arose out of 'absolute nothing' (possibilities are there), then this belief will not work.

It's difficult to say.... I AM!....with no evidence.

Hindu scriptures do say 'Aham Bramasmi' (I am Brahmn), 'Ayamatma Brahman' (This self is Brahman), 'So Aham' (Iam the very same), but they do not say that as persons, they say it as 'what exists in the universe', 'the Ultimate Substrate', 'Brahman'. They also equally emphatically say 'Tat twm si' (That is what you are).

Neither is it an illusion. It's a natural phenomenon.

That is what I too will say. Illusion is a natural phenomenon because of the existence of Brahman. They say Brahman and 'maya' are inseparable, like the sun and its light.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If the universe was created by a supernatural consciousness, it follows that there's only one reason for it to have done so: to spawn creatures with moral free will, without the Creator influencing those moral choices.

in other words - that reason is love, the greatest motive for anything, the greatest potential of free will, love cannot be mandated.