-->
@fauxlaw
Could it extrapolate its own existence from that bok?
One step at a time.
Free Will
Posts
Total:
116
-->
@3RU7AL
design flaw.
Nope. We're just not finished yet, while still mortal beings, with all the permutations of human potential. Think of it like this: God created the universe and its living things, and created within those beings the ability to adapt by natural selection to positively, and negatively evolve. Evolution, therefore, is the ongoing work of creation. I contend that at the seventh day, God did not retire. He is overseeing the evolution of beings through those permutations of their existence, until we reach the permutation we arbitrarily call God. Who knows, his name may be Marvin. He has a name; of that I am certain. And as were are, now, He once was. As He is, we can become. Darwin was right; he just never realized by what expanse he was right.
-->
@FLRW
This sounds like a design flaw. A baby
no, the design is fine. It's the execution of the design that is flawed. Mutation happens. Sometimes, it's beneficial. Sometimes, not. Regardless, that baby, while flawed now, will ultimately be made perfect when all things in their proper order are restored in perfection at the resurrection.
-->
@fauxlaw
Mutation happens.
Doesn't the omnipotent god($) control mutation?
-->
@fauxlaw
God did not retire. He is overseeing the evolution of beings through those permutations of their existence, until we reach the permutation we arbitrarily call God.
Ok, you're talking about more of a demiurge, sandbox god($).
-->
@3RU7AL
Don't blame me, blame the definition of "OMNIPOTENT".
It's not the definition that is the problem. The problem is, once again, believing that just because He can, He will. He can always decide to not use that power in a given situation. You are, once again, denying free agency, even from God.
You have the power to rob your bank. Why don't you use it? Because you decide that's not a good idea to maintain your freedom. There are consequences to the robbery decision, and you, in spite of your power, decide to avoid using it. Why would you deny God that agency?
-->
@3RU7AL
demiurge, sandbox god($).
Nope. God is fully involved in our affairs, if we let Him in.. I talk to him all the time. In fact, I've become so familiar with such conversation, I frequently call him, "Dad." Respectfully, but familiar, because He is, to me. No, I don't hear his words; but we have so many means of communication; so does He. The ears are not the only recipients of inbound communication, just as the mouth is not the only outbound communicator.
-->
@fauxlaw
He can always decide to not use that power in a given situation.
Here's the "problem".
(IFF) god($) is omnipotent (THEN) nothing can happen without god($) power (BECAUSE) OMNIPOTENT = OMNI (ALL) + POTENT (POWER)
(IFF) god($) stops using power on any particular object or person (THEN) it would instantly fall limp, freeze or cease to exist
it would be like me insisting that i can unplug the lamp and let it choose for itself whether or not it wanted to turn on.
without power, nothing can happen.
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't the omnipotent god($) control mutation?
Control, as in manipulate, and not allow it its agency? Nope. Hear what I said. Control would imply being the only cause. But God is not the ONLY cause of anything. I mean that exactly as said. He is contributor to cause, having initiated the whole ball of wax, and He occasionally steps in to manipulate, but the 'wax' either hands over control to something else, or acts on its own volition, accepting God's suggestions. Since God desires that we eventually become like Him, He is not going to lead us astray. We just need to know it is God doing the suggesting, and not anybody else. He's been through this. He knows the successful steps and the pitfalls. Trust in Him must be our guide.
-->
@3RU7AL
IFFs
Haven't we already been over the illogic of these IFFs? No, I will not visit it again, except to review your mention of lacking power. God is not the only one given power. If God decides He will not act, does that prevent my acting, or you? Imagine someone we know is born with a serious defect, like lacking arms or legs, or both. We tend to blame God for this happenstance, but He was not its cause, and should not be blamed. Can't blame the parents, either; they did not choose this for their child. In effect, shyte happens. It's how we react that is important. Blaming God is the wrong step. But, perhaps I can, or you can step in. Perhaps we have the wherewithal to help this unfortunate lead as normal a life as possible. We can also choose not to help. "It's not my responsibility," we may say, and many do, and are mostly correct. On the other hand, Jesus said, "If ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me." The selflessness of one acting on behalf of someone else will always have that sacrifice restored. May not be now, but forever is a long time, and restoration is in the clock God follows. I'm willing to bow to His clock.
-->
@fauxlaw
demiurge, sandbox god($).Nope. God is fully involved in our affairs, if we let Him in.. I talk to him all the time. In fact, I've become so familiar with such conversation, I frequently call him, "Dad." Respectfully, but familiar, because He is, to me. No, I don't hear his words; but we have so many means of communication; so does He. The ears are not the only recipients of inbound communication, just as the mouth is not the only outbound communicator.
Look.
(IFF) we can "grow up" and become equals to god($) (THEN) the god($) we're talking about and the god($) we become are only god($) of a particular domain (or "pocket cosmos" within a greater "multiverse" or "multicosmos")
-->
@fauxlaw
Doesn't the omnipotent god($) control mutation?Control, as in manipulate, and not allow it its agency? Nope. Hear what I said. Control would imply being the only cause.
What is the "other" cause?
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, it isn't that simple. First, even God is increasing in ability, or at least in the execution of His abilities. I believe there is no end to knowledge, that there is not a finite body of knowledge. Then in that respect, even God may still be advancing, otherwise, I think eternity would become boring. Or, if God truly knows everything, He has yet to experience everything using that knowledge. Regardless, His advance is ahead of ours, and always will be. When I say we become like God, that does not mean He reaches a finite end to His godhood whereas, we may be just beginning, if we even reach that threshold. As one star is of a certain brightness, from our perceptive, there are myriad stars brighter and more faint. That is descriptive of our existence relative to God. There are many Gods; one to Whom even God has deference. He, too, is on this path of eternal progression, and there are Gods ahead of, and behind Him. We are also on that path, behind them, and our God, at variable degrees of "brightness." We should want to continually advance, as well.
-->
@3RU7AL
What is the "other" cause?
Other causes. Plural. Satan is a cause. We, ourselves, are each a cause. The nature of all creation and our interaction with it, and its interaction with its various elements, are all causes.
-->
@fauxlaw
There are many Gods; one to Whom even God has deference. He, too, is on this path of eternal progression, and there are Gods ahead of, and behind Him.
Ok, so each god($) is only "omnipotent" and "omniscient" within their designated domain?
Or are you saying that the "first" god($) has "optional" "power" and "optional" "knowledge" over the "younger" god($) in a sort of branching hierarchy?
-->
@fauxlaw
What is the "other" cause?Other causes. Plural. Satan is a cause. We, ourselves, are each a cause. The nature of all creation and our interaction with it, and its interaction with its various elements, are all causes.
Isn't "satan" created by god($)?
Isn't "satan" an agent of god($)?
We humans can't instill ourselves with noble desires, we're born with our desires pre-loaded by god($).
Didn't god($) know exactly what all this "nature" was going to interact with before the dawn of time?
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so each god($) is only "omnipotent" and "omniscient" within their designated domain?Or are you saying that the "first" god($) has "optional" "power" and "optional" "knowledge" over the "younger" god($) in a sort of branching hierarchy?
1. Frankly, I don't know.
2. There is no "first" God. See my description of eternity in my #63. There is no beginning, so, no "first."
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't "satan" created by god($)?Isn't "satan" an agent of god($)?We humans can't instill ourselves with noble desires, we're born with our desires pre-loaded by god($).Didn't god($) know exactly what all this "nature" was going to interact with before the dawn of time?
1. No. God created all of us with the gift of free agency. Satan, once known as "The Son of the Morning" chose to defy God and His free agency, and to convince others of his philosophy of forced determination. His is the invention of predestination, not God.
2. No. He is an agent unto himself. So are you and I.
3. No. Free will, free agency [note that means we are agents unto ourselves - funny how consistent this all is, huh?] means that we determine our desires, noble and otherwise. They are not pre-loaded - that's a determined desitiny and a lack of free agency.
4. Asked and answered. Yes, He did, but that does not mean He established that destiny for us. What is it about free agency that escapes you?
-->
@fauxlaw
2. There is no "first" God. See my description of eternity in my #63. There is no beginning, so, no "first."
(P1) you will become a god at some point
(P2) you were made by a god at some point
(P3) the god that mad you was made by another god at some point
(C1) there was a first god at some point
-->
@fauxlaw
Can black people become gods?
-->
@3RU7AL
(C1) there was a first god at some point
From whence comes that conclusion? None of the single postulates will derive that conclusion. "At some point" does not imply a beginning. "At some point" can be described on a line, which is, mathematically, an infinity in both directions, when I have defined eternity as not even just a line, but a mathematic form that has no description due to its infinite nature, as I've previously said in #63. That kind of logic says that birds fly, camels walk, therefore, butterflies swim. Nope. You have animals exhibiting all those activities, but one of them actually does not exhibit the activity attributed to it. Oh, it can try, and I can well imagine butterflies have been in the water, but what they do is not swimming, therefore, that logic fails..
The last postulate, that
the god that mad you was made by another god at some point
is wrong because we make of ourselves gods by making consistent correct choices, and repenting of wrong choices when necessary, using the gift granted by God of free agency.
-->
@3RU7AL
Can black people become gods?
Yes, and blue people, too.
-->
@fauxlaw
...when I have defined eternity as not even just a line,
I'm not talking about "infinite time".
Is there an "oldest" god($)?
Iff some god($) are older than other god($), then surely there must be an "oldest" god($), right?
-->
@3RU7AL
surely there must be an "oldest" god($), right?
I'm not going to answer that, directly. I already have. Stop trying to cut down the tree that is eternal. Stop thinking of time as a finite structure. There is no time. In the movie series, "The Matrix," you encounter a child who tells Neo that he can bend a spoon with his mind, and proceeds to demonstrate it. Then he baffles Neo with the comment [not a direct quote, I don't recall it exactly], "It will enlighten you to realize there is no spoon." An interesting way to describe infinity, but that is what the child does. In infinity, or eternity, there is no time. Period. Start thinking that way, and this world I'm describing will open vistas to you you cannot imagine now. But, why wait? Start now. Just open up, and be amazed.
-->
@fauxlaw
I already know what "infinity" is.
Are all god($) "infinite" and "eternal" and not properly "older" or "younger" than "other" god($)?
-->
@3RU7AL
As living entities, all gods, and all people, are eternal, but all gods have not always been gods. It's a progreessive [not political] track. All people have the potential to, but not all will achieve the status of godhood. AS with any other title, godhood has a set of parameters that must be achieved to attain the title.