If God knows everything

1. 53

   Rabgixposted 12 years ago

   He knew EXACTLY what would come to pass even before he created the Universe or humanity.
   
   So why do it?
   
   boredom?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, this is one question to which I could never come up with an answer.  I consider myself to be almost very objective with regard to what different people believe, what is truth for them.  But this one is a baffler. 
      
      One explanation I heard years ago had to do with several bored gods, like the myth gods and their board/bored games.

      replyreport
   2. 74

      Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ever watch a movie more than once?
      
      How about a movie you have seen soo many times you even know all the lines?
      
      
      Ever listen to a song you know every word to?
      
      
      
      How about a recording of your children say on thier birthday or your wedding, ever want to watch that even when you know EXACTLY what is going to happen?
      
      Maybe it is something like that.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         So that puts us in a time warp.  Possibly closer to the truth than anyone might suspect except we can now change the ending just like in the most advanced video games.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I guess (since we don't have any proof to the contrary) it is possible, like you're saying, that we are like a video game to God...
            
            But I don't believe that is the way God sees us, or the way God looks at us. I believe we are cherished by God the same way a good parent cherishes thier children. Movies of when they were little, watching them enjoy life, watching them explore life and the loving emotions those videos bring back to life for us.... I think life does that for God.
            
            But who knows.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               jloedingposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I can believe this.  We are God's children, and very important to Him.  He even has our names engraved in the palm of His hand.    Just as we carry pictures of our children and grandchildren, they are important to us and we enjoy showing them off.  Someone said that if God had a refrigerator, our pictures would be on it.  I like that idea.

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Nice. 
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  (but for the record I don't believe God is a he.)

                  replyreport
      2. 61

         Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That sounds like a very insightful answer Mikel. I've never thought of it like that. Thanks.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   3. 78

      Taleb80posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If God knows, why do you feel bored?
      For you everything is new & not known.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He did it for us.
      
      It's true, God knows which of us will end up in 'heaven' or 'hell'(I believe they are all just varying degrees of 'heaven'). But if that's the case, why not just put us in heaven?
      
      I think the reason is because our experiences on earth are required for our own growth... he does it for us, not for him.
      
      It's like a cousin of mine... unbelievably intelligent, he has broken the scoring systems for certain tests. When he was in high school(unfortunately, he lived in an area where there was no opportunity for tutoring, skipping grades, or private school), everyone knew that every test he took and every assignment he did, he would get a perfect score. He graduated high school with 100% or more in every class.
      
      But even though people knew he would grasp any new concept and ace any of those tests didn't mean he could skip them. It was still important for him to learn the concepts for himself.

      replyreport
   5. 60

      LewSethicsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe god eats our experiences, then lets the shell that contained them wallow in an infinite Handel's Messiah till the end of time.

      replyreport
   6. 70

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Humor.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well you would not know unless you develop the eyes to see it...
      
      And when you do see it you too would say as He and other he attain the same knowledge of Him and as Him..
      
      It is Good.

      replyreport
   8. 60

      pearpandasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You are thinking in very abstract terms.  Why should he/she/it have motivation? Or be nothing but a random series of things themselves.  It also begs the question of whether or not we have free will.  How can we go to heaven or hell if we dont?

      replyreport
2. 60

   Pacific Transferposted 12 years ago

   If you like at it a bit more optimistically all of a sudden you realize that it must of been the right thing to do.
   
   I love my life!

   replyreport
3. 61

   couturepopcafeposted 12 years ago

   But so far, no one has actually answered the question.  I know it's because it's unanswerable so don't really expect an answer.  My best insight has more to do with we - as spirit (and Christianity having laid claim to us being in the image and likeness of god, this meaning we not only look like him but have his inner essence) being more fragmented than we once were.  When we can all come together once again as pure spirit, we will rediscover the heart and mind of what we call god.
   
   There are many good and helpful instructions to getting there in the Bible.  They should be taken literally.  Considering the Old Testament, we must also consider the fact that change in theology and perspective took place over time and can take place again.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Good luck with that Intellectual Dishonesty.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         What do you mean 'Dishonesty'?

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The definition of Intellectual Dishonesty:
            
            Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hmm.  Excellent definition and somewhat a contradiction unto itself.  However, I'm not seeing your reasoning behind your belief that my statement is such.  Would you mind pointing out which part you believe to be false?

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  That any of the various, diverse, translations and often edited versions of the 'Bibles' can be taken as literal.
                  
                  They are, at very best, a mix of fables, metaphorical teachings and analogies designed to promote an agenda. They contain vast examples of situations that if taken literally lead to the conclusion that God must be evil, arrogant, petty, hateful, vengeful, needful, lacking, uncompromising, unforgiving, psychotic and generally not a nice entity. A creature that requires the murder of ones children, ones enemies, ones thoughts, ones freedom, ones individuality and ones independence. Unforgivable things include: Doubt, disobedience, falling out of love, sex, laziness, education/learning (tree of knowledge), any number of ways of dressing and social interactions.
                  
                  In my experience of God, God is a loving, caring, openminded, accepting being that loves all the various diversities of creation.
                  
                  ...All things Big and Small... There is no 'wrong' way to pray, and there is no 'wrong' way to believe or not believe in God. God is and will remain God no matter what people believe, disbelieve or do. God does not need us, we need God.
                  
                  The Bibles were originally written by people that are too us ancient/primitive people. To believe they achieved all that can ever be achieved, learned all that can ever be learned about nature, existence and the nature of God is Intellectual Dishonesty.
                  
                  Trying to treat each of the various diverse versions of the 'Bibles' as absolute literal truth, that can not ever be improved upon. Treating each of the various diverse versions of the 'Bibles' as the 'one and only truth is Intellectual Dishonesty.
                  
                  Where would we be if we treated Math books the way 'Literal' belief systems are saying we 'must' treat each of the various diverse versions of the 'Bibles'?
                  
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Thank you for your response.  I'll need to respond in stages.
                     
                     Many Christians believe the NT is to be taken literally and many believe it is strictly metaphorical.  I believe it to be a guidebook of how to live.  In this sense, I meant it should be taken literally.  Perhaps there are too many lessons for many to absorb all at once but there is much good to be learned from the NT.  But you are right in your elaboration of the 'bad' contained therein.
                     
                     I did state that theology and perspective take place over time and can take place again which means they can change over time - just as what you're saying about ancient peoples achievements, so we agree there, just in different words.
                     
                     I always believe anything can be improved upon.  I suppose I used the word literal too liberally.  I meant it with regard to the good way we should live.  This is a topic for another forum because I could go on at length with regard to the many lessons, both obvious and obscured, in the NT. 
                     
                     There is no overwhelming evidence to the contrary regarding spirit.  Therefore, I counter that I am not being intellectually dishonest.

                     replyreport
      2. 80

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         So, you are calling him a liar? Because many people do believe in Biblical literalism; I would not assume they are just pretending that is possible. They seem to really believe it.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No. I said the belief that the bibles can be taken literally is intellectually dishonest.
            
            
            Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary.
            
            I agree lots and lots of people really really believe it. To the point that they justify terrorism and 2000 years of religious warfare. To the point of attempted genocide of an entire race of people. To the point that they cannot see they have become the tool of that which they hate most.
            
            That is Intellectual Dishonesty.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You can only argue that taking the Bible literally is intellectually dishonest if you can prove the Bible to be false. Otherwise, it isn't a position known to be false.

               replyreport
               1. 53

                  Rabgixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The bible is obviously false. Otherwise you wouldn't need faith.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Faith is not defined as the belief in things that are false. So that doesn't really follow.

                     replyreport
                  2. 74

                     Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     "The Bibles can't be taken literally." That doesn't make them false. It just means you still have to use your brain and think about the concepts they discuss.
                     In my opinion there is a vast amount of truth there, you just have to eliminate the human agendas that are also there.

                     replyreport
                  3. 59

                     emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You don't believe it is possible to have faith in something that is true?
                     
                     What about faith makes it impossible to believe in something that is true?

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        autumn18posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Good questions. I know they weren't directed towards me but I wonder about the same kind of stuff. For me it's pointless to profess a faith in something that is clearly true. I don't have faith or believe that I need food to survive or that the sun will set tonight. I know these things to be true. I "believe" and "have faith" in things I hope to be true.
                        
                        "I have faith that so and so is a trustworthy person and wont screw me over"
                        "I believe one day I will be able to have a child with my husband after trying for so long."
                        
                        I know someone who looks at their belief in God as a "known". That works for them but not for me. I can't claim that I "know" something that I don't "know".

                        replyreport
               2. 80

                  psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Clearly anything he doesn't agree with is false, therefore everyone who disagrees with him is "intellectually dishonest". There is a saying about a log and a mote that comes to mind.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Prove me wrong.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        About what? If you don't think people are sincerely leading lives of Biblical literalism there are plenty of fundamentalist communities out there, easy to find.

                        replyreport
                        1. 74

                           Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           You said, "...anything he doesn't agree with is false, therefore everyone who disagrees with him is "intellectually dishonest..."
                           
                           
                           Got Proof? Prove that what I believe is false. I am constantly listing the reasons why what I believe is true. Do the same. Prove your stance.
                           
                           
                           
                           'Clearly' isn't proof, it's opinion, your opinion.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              That is not a matter of data but reason. You are saying someone who is a biblical literalist is, apparently by definition, intellectually dishonest.
                              
                              I see:
                              1) The Bible is false
                              2) People believe it is literal true
                              Therefore
                              3) Biblical literalists are intellectually dishonest
                              
                              The assumption 1) reads as the Bible is false because I know it is false.
                              
                              Ergo, because I am right, anyone who disagrees with me is intellectually dishonest.
                              
                              So, show me a way to make the same conclusion without the logical fallacy in 1)...

                              replyreport
                              1. 74

                                 Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Your turn.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Since we are discussing the literal interpretation of the bible, can you back up each of your points with biblical references? Otherwise, how do we know you aren't using personal interpretation as proof?

                                    replyreport
                           2. 59

                              emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              The instant you go from stating your opinion to claiming that people who take the Bible literally are dishonest, the burden of proof lies on YOU. I know you love your logic Mikel, try and follow it. You can't call someone a liar because something they believe is false, and expect them to prove it true.
                              
                              Burden of proof, and argument from ignorance(assuming the Bible is false because it hasn't been proven true).

                              replyreport
4. 66

   awareposted 12 years ago

   gods a he ?    god  knows this?

   replyreport
5. 66

   awareposted 12 years ago

   loves lews answer.

   replyreport
6. 74

   Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago

   Logic is a science, logical reason is data. Data that can be proven correct or incorrect. Disbelieving that the accepted definition of the term is false simply because you disagree with it..is..wait for it....
   
   
   Intellectual Dishonesty.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Even if you consider logic a science, you fail to provide any logical, concrete proof. Proof is evidence that is sufficient as to not be doubted.
      
      Furthermore, you induce logical fallacies in your arguments, which nullify your entire argument.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Science may be based on logical deduction, but to say logic is science is not really accurate.  Logical reasoning is only reasonable based on earlier statements or experiences.  If I burn my finger in the fire, it is logical for me to assume that my finger will burn if put in the fire again.  I think it's safe to say we all understand what logical deduction is.
      
      But intellectual dishonesty, IMO, has more to do with hypocrisy - either you profess a belief and do not live by it or you profess to believe something which you know to be untrue.
      
      Intellectual dishonesty cannot be committed if one holds true to their beliefs.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "to say logic is science is not really accurate"
         
         Intellectual Dishonesty:
         Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary.
         
         
         The formal definition of logic:
         1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
         2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
         3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
         4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
         5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
         
         another:
         Definition of LOGIC:
         1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotics; especially: syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2): relevance, propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also: the circuits themselves .
         2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>

         replyreport
         1. 59

            emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Logical evidence provided based upon logical fallacies isn't evidence. Arguments provided without supporting reference aren't evidence.
            
            If you want to use logic as a science, you have to follow its rules.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            When are we allowed to use Urban Dictionary to provide definitions for terms we use in an argument?

            replyreport
         3. 61

            couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Mikel - thanks for spouting the dictionary.  Here's another definition of logic:  a) the study of the principles of reasoning b) valid reasoning esp. as distinguished from invalid or irrational argumentation c) the formal guiding principles of a discipline
            
            So what.  None of this makes your argument for intellectual dishonesty.  Part of intellectualism is the ability to think abstracly or profoundly.  Another part is being able to furnish a rational structure or meaning for some POV.  I have done both.  You have proven you can read the dictionary.  Namaste

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Buddah would be proud... lol
               
               
               Namaste

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
7. 69

   Paradise7posted 12 years ago

   Maybe we were a social experiment gone a little bit wrong.  The ants were a more succesful social experiment.  Anything is possible; it's always fun to speculate.

   replyreport
8. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Works for me.

   replyreport
9. 0

   Wilfionposted 12 years ago

   Perhaps after God grew into adulthood, his dad told him he had to do something with His life, because he couldn't support Him any longer.  God, then applied for a job as a universe builder, and the rest is history.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps

      replyreport
10. 60

    SpanStarposted 12 years ago

    From my view God created that which had never been done before but not only that he created love which existed with Adam and Eve I presume the animals understand the concept of love.  It was a dream of beauty because mankind hadn't sin so they could walk just like a child completely naked unashamed for love was in their hearts.
    
    I further believe that God perhaps knew that it wouldn't last but because he gave us free will that he hoped that we might prove him wrong and do the right thing which would be to listen and obey God.  Unfortnately we rarely do the right thing.
    
    God has down through the ages looked upon us with love but after giving us free will he can't very well say you have free will but this is what you Will have to do.  Often in the bible when God hasn't gotten involved it's usually from mankind calling on God to help us out of the mess we've created.
    
    Let apply that question to ourselves.  If we knew our unborn child would come into this world and getting into trouble with the law, talk back to us would we still have him/them?

    replyreport
11. 48

    terrywnposted 12 years ago

    Never think about something like that. God can do nothing to you.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       SpanStarposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with you Terrywn...

       replyreport