What if 'God' simply wants to experience everything?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Punisher75
luthier

Is God reacting to possibilities or creating out of free will of his own.

Do you mean IS God reacting or do you mean IF god is reacting?
I only ask because I am not sure if you missed a ? or if you typo-ed "is"

I meant if but is would be find if you want to answer.

My point was God knows all outcomes even ones that don't happen then he is limited in his own creation. He can't create a world that doesn't happen.

It is an interesting thought, however I don't think it can be rationalized that way.
In short that argument is the same to me as saying, "Can God make a round square." or "Can God make something so heavy that he cant lift it."
I am not real certain how one can approach that argument and still define anything as objectively true and if that is the path we want to take then we cannot be certain that this thread even exists, to have a conversation.
Poor Descartes goes the way of the dodo.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Punisher75

If we are going to presuppose God, then we would have to presuppose God would have no reason to see what it is like, because being all knowing, they would already know what they like.
Why?
Because if God was not all Knowing then they would not really be God, but rather just a powerful, cosmic entity.

God does not know what 5 minutes from now looks like. God is what is knowing in this moment.
What is it that is knowing the thoughts that appear in you?
What is it that is knowing there is text being read?

God is all knowing - that is what God is, God is knowing what there is to know right here and right now - God is this ever present space of knowing.

We will need to disagree I think. I simply don't put God in that small of a Box.

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99
a reply to: Punisher75

...and if folk are only reading the bible, they are kidding themselves...

Å99

Can I ask what the deal is? Why are you continuously taking jabs at me for being Christian? Have I done something to offend you?

If your choice is to take an OP thread (which you are participating in, amongst others) and paranoically ask me that kind of a silly question...I'm wondering what sort of grasp you actually have on the OP.

How about this...discuss the OP...

Å99

Um I did actually and was if you would read my first post.
All I did in the beginning was try to understand the question and parse it out in a logical way, so that I could find a way to discuss the points of the question in a somewhat Socratic way.
So if you want to know what kind of grasp I have on the topic have no fear I understand it pretty well I think. However to have that conversation we have to first define what we are going to agree upon as attributes of God.
Which brings us squarely to the question of Gods Knowledge.

Attributes of God (or more specifically, Source)

A. Everything

Gods' knowledge

A. Everything


Å99

Yes we established that you hold to a pantheistic understanding of God.

I am the Alpha and the Omega.

Where does this come from?

Å99

It makes no difference where the text comes from because a pantheist would say that even the text and the paper that it is written on is God as well.

You've nominated yourself as being a christian - accused me of being a pantheist.

The text comes from the little golden book (revelation specifically)...therefore christianity is pantheist according to your chosen definition.

Å99

No I am afraid that you just don't understand what is men't by Alpha and Omega.
Here is the whole verse, in revelations that you are quoting.

Rev:22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Notice how it says "The First and the Last?"
That is an indication of a temporal position, not a claim of essence. All that is being said is "I am eternal", it is not saying I am everything.

Hahaha...a temporal position from an untemporal thing...

Its wider meaning is gleaned from all cosmologies (they all have the same statement)...meaning, I am the beginning (since I created everything), the end (whatever that could mean to a being outside time), and everything in between...no different to any other cosmology...

I am every time, every thing, every experience...But you can all cling to the separationist ideology that necessitates the furrowedbrow discussions of free will and sin...at your leisure...hahaha

Å99

a reply to: Punisher75
The witness of the present cannot be in a box - now is eternal.
The witness never comes or goes but that which is witnessed is ever changing.

God is all seeing and all knowing - without the space for things to come and go in there can be no existence.

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Punisher75
luthier

Is God reacting to possibilities or creating out of free will of his own.

Do you mean IS God reacting or do you mean IF god is reacting?
I only ask because I am not sure if you missed a ? or if you typo-ed "is"

I meant if but is would be find if you want to answer.

My point was God knows all outcomes even ones that don't happen then he is limited in his own creation. He can't create a world that doesn't happen.

It is an interesting thought, however I don't think it can be rationalized that way.
In short that argument is the same to me as saying, "Can God make a round square." or "Can God make something so heavy that he cant lift it."
I am not real certain how one can approach that argument and still define anything as objectively true and if that is the path we want to take then we cannot be certain that this thread even exists, to have a conversation.
Poor Descartes goes the way of the dodo.

Those are valid and historic arguements of reason are they not?

And Kant rectified that by saying we constitute reality essentially. Meaning the observation is what is real. If you are observing this thread it doesn't matter if its a dream or not your observation makes reality. (To overly simplify it).

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: akushla99
a reply to: Punisher75

...and if folk are only reading the bible, they are kidding themselves...

Å99

Can I ask what the deal is? Why are you continuously taking jabs at me for being Christian? Have I done something to offend you?

If your choice is to take an OP thread (which you are participating in, amongst others) and paranoically ask me that kind of a silly question...I'm wondering what sort of grasp you actually have on the OP.

How about this...discuss the OP...

Å99

Um I did actually and was if you would read my first post.
All I did in the beginning was try to understand the question and parse it out in a logical way, so that I could find a way to discuss the points of the question in a somewhat Socratic way.
So if you want to know what kind of grasp I have on the topic have no fear I understand it pretty well I think. However to have that conversation we have to first define what we are going to agree upon as attributes of God.
Which brings us squarely to the question of Gods Knowledge.

Attributes of God (or more specifically, Source)

A. Everything

Gods' knowledge

A. Everything


Å99

Yes we established that you hold to a pantheistic understanding of God.

I am the Alpha and the Omega.

Where does this come from?

Å99

It makes no difference where the text comes from because a pantheist would say that even the text and the paper that it is written on is God as well.

You've nominated yourself as being a christian - accused me of being a pantheist.

The text comes from the little golden book (revelation specifically)...therefore christianity is pantheist according to your chosen definition.

Å99

No I am afraid that you just don't understand what is men't by Alpha and Omega.
Here is the whole verse, in revelations that you are quoting.

Rev:22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Notice how it says "The First and the Last?"
That is an indication of a temporal position, not a claim of essence. All that is being said is "I am eternal", it is not saying I am everything.

Hahaha...a temporal position from an untemporal thing...

Its wider meaning is gleaned from all cosmologies (they all have the same statement)...meaning, I am the beginning (since I created everything), the end (whatever that could mean to a being outside time), and everything in between...no different to any other cosmology...

I am every time, every thing, every experience...But you can all cling to the separationist ideology that necessitates the furrowedbrow discussions of free will and sin...at your leisure...hahaha

Å99

Not sure about the laugh, you will notice I defined God as eternal correct? i.e. outside of time.

There is a reason there was an alphabet is being used as a reference there. it was for temporal beings benefit not Gods.The reason is because there is a beginning and end to the alphabet. (that would be the symbol being used as time)
You will note that we have a beginning, that does not however follow that we have an end. Because we have a beginning we are therefore not eternal.
To be Eternal means to be outside of time.
The temporal reference is so that temporal beings, i.e. us can understand that God is outside of time.
In so far as your claim to being everything?... Okay Dokie if you say so.

a reply to: Profusion

You have successfully described two very nice short stories;
The Egg

Gods Debris

a reply to: Punisher75
I see where you are coming from. But I conclude it would be not possible to give every being equal "goodness", no sorrow and pain etc. Because for that, everyone would need experience exactly the same. That would not be a life, nor free will.

If God (unrelated to religion) made this world for beings to experience, they need free will. Otherwise, that would be evil and somehow pointless. That´s why there are certain rules in every religion. For me, religion is to bring moral to the people. And I can´t befriend myself with the idea that God would give a human being commandmends or rules to give it down the generations. It must be clear that over time his words would be changed.

The best way for god would be to give a introduction to every being, early in it´s life. This way everyone would have chance to get "the message" and not be reliant on other human beings for their word is the truth.

Because we see, it seldom plays out in the rougher parts of the world to live in.

I hope I wrote it in a way it´s understandable for others.

The alpha and the omega - the beginning and the end and not in time - that would be now!
There is only presence but there is a concept of time.

Where is time now?
Time only appears as a thought now - what is aware of thought now?

Can anything appear to happen outside of now?

There is only presence and presence appears to consist of a knower and the known - they are not separate.

originally posted by: luthier


Meaning the observation is what is real. If you are observing this thread it doesn't matter if its a dream or not your observation makes reality. (To overly simplify it).

This is what is meant by the statement 'The truth is hidden in plain sight' - in the very seeing, everything appears. 'Observation is what is real'.
Seeing is not a thing but everything appears within it - nothing can appear outside the seeing/knowing.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Punisher75
I see where you are coming from. But I conclude it would be not possible to give every being equal "goodness", no sorrow and pain etc. Because for that, everyone would need experience exactly the same. That would not be a life, nor free will.

If God (unrelated to religion) made this world for beings to experience, they need free will. Otherwise, that would be evil and somehow pointless. That´s why there are certain rules in every religion. For me, religion is to bring moral to the people. And I can´t befriend myself with the idea that God would give a human being commandmends or rules to give it down the generations. It must be clear that over time his words would be changed.

The best way for god would be to give a introduction to every being, early in it´s life. This way everyone would have chance to get "the message" and not be reliant on other human beings for their word is the truth.

Because we see, it seldom plays out in the rougher parts of the world to live in.

I hope I wrote it in a way it´s understandable for others.

I think I understand what you mean, and I can understand our (mankind as a whole) predilection to apply that idea to how we think God should operate.
Where I get off the train is the presupposition that I, not being all knowing, could honestly claim that I would do anything different than what God has done.
If that makes sense?

Isn't that in itself quite the contradiction?
If there was a being all knowing, why would it need to have experiences? Experiences are for learning.
I know this parable and entertained it myself for a while, but honestly: it doesn't make much sense.

a reply to: Peeple

Exchange "experience" with "fun"?

originally posted by: Bluesma
I DO suspect this is true... partly.

I don't believe in an entity- deity God, but perhaps feel more of a general consciousness, like "the Force" or something, that seeks only experience.... experience of any and every kind.
I feel such a spark in me, so I guess it is easy to just imagine that further, endless, in everything....

Experience of ANY kind? That does seem like MINDLESSNESS more than what anything AWARE would do.
How could any "god" be about something alike to driving without using the steering wheel for the sake of "experiencing everything"?

originally posted by: yosako

Experience of ANY kind? That does seem like MINDLESSNESS more than what anything AWARE would do.
How could any "god" be about something alike to driving without using the steering wheel for the sake of "experiencing everything"?

Yeah... like I said, I don't believe in any God. I am not talking about any "thing".
I was referring to consciousness.... general, not "self consciousness" nor "self awareness".

The concept of consciousness in this way is somewhat abstract, and perhaps difficult for some to grasp if used to a religious deity point of view.

Um... lets see... there's drops of water, there is lakes of water, oceans of water, cups of water, even clouds of water... then there is "water" of which all those things are made of, and within each the water gains a taste, odor, color, and form.

I'm speaking of consciousness in this way - like water, undefined.

a reply to: Peeple

Because you can't be all-knowing if there is nothing to know.

The only reason you knowwhat chocolate tastes like is because you have experiencedeating chocolate. God found out what chocolate tastes like the same way (through us).

"The only way to know the truth is to become one with it"

a reply to: Punisher75

When you start wrapping your brain around what I've written rather than spending time either labelling me or misquoting me - (i.e. 'You'll notice I never said I was a pantheist, or that 'I' was everything) you might get closer to actually doing what it is you have claimed you want to do - which is discuss...

Apart from the second-guess on Gods' behalf by your statement iterating upon whose behalf an alphabetical reference might be used - the alphabet reference is multi-functional...encompassing the totality of the (for english speakers) alphabet. Its reference signals the statement 'I am totality' the beginning, everything in between, and the end...akin to saying, I am Almighty, Omniscient, omnipotent etc. etc. etc...

Having established a figure with attributes of that baseline - almighty, all knowing, all powerful, temporally unbound, etc...What can we know with any confidence without anthropomorphising something beyond time, in aquisition of all knowledge, the pinnacle of power (if not the creator of the attributes folk seem to logically struggle with?)...

The answer, as I have stated is not in one book only...the 'why' is a relevant OP question - but, as I have asked 'Why is this posited as a theory?' - when all cosmologies, even those that (in the main) contradict each other, fundamentally aver the essence of the OP question - which makes no mention of any constructed faith, and at best is inclusive of all views possible - whether you'd prefer to label (being the kind of diversionary behaviour that does not promote discussion) or not (which would be 'discussion')...

Our bodies certainly have a beginning and an end...the rest can be contemplated with a bio-mechanism capable of asking the question...to what purpose? (if you subscribe to the one-life one-chance theory)...why would you do this?...if the alternative were to not do it - which is not what we are discussing - clearly...

Å99

originally posted by: Profusion
I do not believe the theory I'm going to present here. I'm only presenting this theory as a thought experiment. In order to consider this theory, you need to make some assumptions which are summed up in the following sentence:

The creator of the universe designed the universe for one consciousness (the creator's consciousness) to experience every possible experience subjectively.

What that means is that every living thing contains part of the creator's consciousness. The creator can therefore simultaneously experience what it's like to be every living thing from the unique perspective of that thing (that's the subjective part). The creator can then learn what it's like to be every animal, every plant, every insect, etc. in a very genuine way.

That assumption is not a unique thought on my part. But, I believe the rest of the theory I'm presenting in this post may be new.

What if "God" simply wants to experience everything?

The way I see that question could shine a whole new light on everything that's happening in the world. It seems like many people have questions about life such as:

Why does "God" allow bad things to happen to good people?
Why does "God" allow so much suffering?
Why does "God" allow so much disease?
Why did "God" create such a "dog eat dog" world?

With my theory, there is one answer to all of those questions and many more and it is simple and understandable:

"God" wants to try out everything for self-growth and to see what he/she/it likes.

If really realistic virtual reality existed, would you like to try out your fantasies? Would you like to try out your nightmares? I would. In a virtual reality environment, why put limits on it?

If you were the kind of powerful being that "God" must be, perhaps you would want to try everything too. You could be a bear hunting for fish and be the fish. You could be both sides of a sporting event. You could be both sides of a war. It could sure be a cure for boredom at the very least.

If you were an all-powerful kind of being there may be no way that you could ever personally experience fear. However, within the context of existence in an animal's body, you could experience fear. And, you could experience joy, pain, and every other feeling and emotion imaginable.

What could the benefits of that be? How about developing empathy, sympathy, compassion, and lots of other things that you never could have experienced without the virtual reality you created.

I think this is an important theory to consider because it may answer all the questions people have about the world without making too many assumptions.

got it

a reply to: Eladria

There can be considered two types of knowledge A priori. All bachelors are single.

Or a posteriori. Which is emperical. Through expireince.

Maybe its not just god but you too wanting too experiance