God Thinks!?

If God has a brain, we're part of it.

If it thinks, it takes aeons.

If it makes up its mind, we're boned.

If you actually read my post you would see that this whole "thinking" business only sparked my later questions.

First off when you use quotes it implies that you are actually copying exactly from the source you quote. Simple basic grammar.
It seems it is you who forgot what you posted. I will remind you once again.

the only time in the bible that mentions God "thinking"

Ok back to basic grammar. You say that the only time the bible, not a story made up for children which is your source, mentions the word "thinking".
Notice those quotes you put around thinking. You say the bible mentions the word thinking in this verse, you even quote it as saying this.
Now to the facts. The bible does not say thinking in that passage. You are wrong. Simple as that. You provided a false evidence to support you original claim. Then you expext me to ignore your bad evidence and just accept it as true. Sorry, I have to call you on your poor research of the issue. Your entire argument rests on your first statement, which has been prove to be false.

You still have not commented on the fact you even misqoute the source you give as your proof.

You misquote your source which in turn misqoutes the bible. Bad form man.

For someone who knows so much about the bible I dont see how you are failing to grasp this simple concept.

Well thank you. It makes me happy that I can impress you with my bible knowledge. Really I am just a student of the text. All I had to do to prove you wrong was read from the bible. Not really that difficult. It is you who has the burden of proof to show me the simple concept which you claim is there, but since you haven't even factually referred to the bible once in your argument I don't see that happening any time soon.

All right now that we got through all the mud...

Ok fine. I wont disagree there. But that means we're all able to barter with god.

Now I would be glad to engage you one your idea of bartering with God, but first you must prove your assumption that a barter is taking place. If you can stick to actually using the bible as your source material I will be glad to prove your assumptions wrong.

So.... my theory is as follows.

Assume a universe with no god, there is no god.

Ask the question... are qualities that are godlike qualities attainable by sentient species at any point in time before Universal collapse?

As example, Omnipotence. All powerful. Control of Energy, Matter, Time, Space, and in general reality as is known.

If qualities are attainable by sentient species, then one such quality as Omnipotence allows for the acquisition of the two remaining qualities. Omnipresence and Omniscience. In shorthand, being all powerful means you can make time and space in such a way that you are all places, and can know everything by fiddling with the laws governing information.

Likewise, if you are Omnipresent, it is possible that you observe all things in all places.... thus granting you omniscience. Invariably at some point in time, if the FIRST is true (Omnipotence being possible) then you become Omnipresent as well.

Or if you are Omniscient, and it is possible to either be omnipresent or omnipotent, you know these qualities as well.

Moving on.

-
-
-

So then. Let us assume that only one of these qualities is possible. Does it matter which one it is? If you are Omnipresent, you are superpositional... meaning that you exist recursively at every moment in time as well as every position possible in the universe.

If you are Omniscient, Then you are aware of all possible outcomes and collective formations of knowledge, including any and all rules governing the physics of the realm, as well as any potential violable out-loops.

If you are omnipotent.... well then, you make the rules then.

Moving on.

--

--

--

Alright. Assume that other universes exist. A likely, if not plausible, assumption in the realm of science. Each universe invariably has its own rules structures and subsets.

Now then. If there is one universe wherein any of the omni's are potentially possible, one could surmise that at some point before the collapse of the universe, such a quality will be attained by at least one sentient entity.

Propagation occurs as follows... at moment of attainment of any omni quality, the quality attains an infinitely recursive propagation. Such as that, a being will propagate itself into the beginning of existence and thus exist as a god prior to having attained the quality due to having attained the quality.

Likewise, any and all universes wherein the entity can exist the entity shall exist and likewise in a recursive manner.

Thusly, any universe where God is able to exist, God Does Exist (TM). Or, to put it in a more direct statement; Anyplace where a God has potential to exist, God Necessarily exists.

Thusly, I am confident that a God exists. I am merely uncertain if this is true for our own universe.

This of course does raise the possibility that God is just as flawed as an intelligent being created in its image. That being said, however, the universe at the God's whim must necessarily follow the plans of said entity unless a like force opposes.

So, if paradise does not exist (And we'd be wired to accept whatever paradise the God wills), then there must be some form of opposition.

Either that, or the deity wishes to create flawed situations for some reason. Also feasible.

---
---
---

Just some thoughts.

The answer:

Thread: Mathematics and Secret Societies

...If the student is not prepared, he is deceived, because he finds himself with a world filled with the crudest realism.

This is the world of mathematics. Here, one sees the drama of nature; one is a spectator of nature. The world of mathematics is the world of Atman.


The one that thinks is the mind, not the Innermost. The human mind in its actual state of evolution is the animal that we carry within.

The concept of Descartes, “I think therefore I am” is completely false, because the true human being is the Innermost and the Innermost does not think because he knows.

Atman does not need to think because Atman is omniscient...

The Being, the Innermost, can say: "I AM, therefore I think".




[edit on 9-4-2007 by Tamahu]

I thought Abraham was a classic case of Schizophrenia.
Normally when you hear the Voice of God in your head telling you to kill people, that's when you should be taking medication.

Dr Seus im not going to even both with you anymore because once again your ignoring the fact that god was contemplating an issue, by trying to argue something pointless as to whether or not the word "think" was used.
It was one of the only times god was seen contemplating an issue.
If your too thick to realize that i'm not concerned with the exact wording because the exact wording doesnt prove ANYTHING! since the concept still exist than your as hopeless and stubborn as 90% of your fellows.

People like you drive me nuts.



[edit on 10-4-2007 by xEphon]

This is the problem I have with the Old Testament. It makes God seem too human... He gets angry,vengeful, even hateful... Uh,sorry, but that's not the God I know and it's certainly not the God Christ spoke of.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
This of course does raise the possibility that God is just as flawed as an intelligent being created in its image. That being said, however, the universe at the God's whim must necessarily follow the plans of said entity unless a like force opposes.

So, if paradise does not exist (And we'd be wired to accept whatever paradise the God wills), then there must be some form of opposition.

Either that, or the deity wishes to create flawed situations for some reason. Also feasible.


Just some thoughts.

Thats my reasoning too.
He is either just as flawed as the rest of us or he intentionally creates flawed situations. If he creates flawed situations and still retains an omni quality then he is more like a deceiver than a type of god that we attribue him to be, although gods were known to have many types of personalities in the past so perhaps this isnt so unusual.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
This is the problem I have with the Old Testament. It makes God seem too human...

and the new testament doesn't?

He gets angry,vengeful, even hateful... Uh,sorry, but that's not the God I know and it's certainly not the God Christ spoke of.

jesus seemed awfully pissed at the money changers in the temple...
and he did call for the death of those who didn't believe in him

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

and the new testament doesn't?

Certainly not... Jesus referred to God as the spiritual Father in heaven. That is not attributing human qualities to God at all. Emphasis on the word SPIRITUAL.

jesus seemed awfully pissed at the money changers in the temple...
and he did call for the death of those who didn't believe in him

So, pious people don't get angry? You tell me where Jesus ever told anyone to go out and commit murder and I will kiss your ass on capitol hill.



[edit on 10-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

By the way, don't quote me a verse where Jesus says that "He who doesn't believe in me dies..." or whatever. I want you to point out to me where Jesus ever told anyone to murder in his name,madness... Please... I am dying to see this one. Waiting in giddy anticipation.. Salivating at the mouth.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 10-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Dr Seus im not going to even both with you anymore because once again your ignoring the fact that god was contemplating an issue

You have yet to prove that. I know it is hard for you to actually read the bible, but since this is a discussion on what the bible says it does seem a bit important to actually look at what is written in it.

Please enlighten me. Show me where God contemplates destroying the city. God says he is going to destroy the city and He does.. Show me when he contemplates the issue.

All I have asked from you is to prove your point. Yet you refuse. Yoo have refused to even quote your source correctly. Which by the way you still haven't addressed that issue.

Why did you misquote your source?

Why do you refuse to show me from a bible the point you are making. You say it is a simple concept, yet you refuse to provide evidence for it. If it is so simple why can't you provide proof for it?

If your too thick to realize that i'm not concerned with the exact wording because the exact wording doesnt prove ANYTHING!

Haha! The text doesn't prove anything. Now thats grand. I guess it is hard for you to prove your point since the wording of the text "doesnt prove ANYTHING". Man thats is a good one. No wonder you have failed to present evidence for your position.

since the concept still exist

Lots of concepts exist. I have lots of ideas too. The existance of a concept dosen't make it a truth. You have to back up your concept with proof, which you seem to be in short supply. Come on now. Pretty please with sugar on top.. Show me your evidence.

your as hopeless and stubborn as 90% of your fellows.

Who are these fellows that you lump me with? The ones that want people to support there arguments with facts? Guilty as charged. I guess I am hopeless for asking you to provide proof for the assumptions you make about the bible. Silly me.

People like you drive me nuts.

Well don't ever join a debate team. You will end up in a rubber room with a fancy new white coat.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
By the way, don't quote me a verse where Jesus says that "He who doesn't believe in me dies..." or whatever. I want you to point out to me where Jesus ever told anyone to murder in his name,madness... Please... I am dying to see this one. Waiting in giddy anticipation.. Salivating at the mouth.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 10-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Its not exactly what you are looking for, but it is as close as it comes.

Matthew 10:34-39

34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;

36and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

37"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

38"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

39"He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

source for qoute

Lets start with verse 34.

First off Jesus tells us why he came, not for peace, which is the reason many people say Jesus came. Now Jesus uses a metaphor. He says he came with a sword. Now the bible never mentions Jesus literally carrying a sword, so most likely he is using the phrase as a metaphor. So if we examine his metaphor in contrast with him saying that he did not come to bring peace, we can reach a conclusion that Jesus meant he was coming to bring conflict.

Verses 35, 36.

Jesus elaborates on the type of conflict he brings. He tells us that he is going to make fathers and sons enemies etc..

Verse 37.

Jesus tell us that unless we love Him the most we are not worthy of him. He makes the example of the love for ones family. So we must put Him first. Since our families are enemies it shouldn't be to hard to turn to Jesus.

Verse 38.

Unless we live like Jesus, we are not worthy of him. This connects to what we first read. Why did Jesus come? To bring conflict. Then he says unless we live like him we are not worthy of him. So what must we do to live like him? Bring conflict.

Verse 39.
What is the end result in rejection of Christ? Death.


Now this is not a litteral statement saying for christians to go out and kill people, but it does come close. As close as you will find in the sayings of Jesus.

If you really want to examine the doctrine of the trinity, which I believe the bible clearly teaches, then we can say that whenever God spoke, so did Christ. If you accept that, then there are a few old testament verse where God litteraly says go out and kill those people.

I hope this dosen't squelch your giddy anticipation.

Troll_Seus this is the last im going to entertain your ignorance.

Why do you refuse to show me from a bible the point you are making. You say it is a simple concept, yet you refuse to provide evidence for it. If it is so simple why can't you

There mere fact that he was having a DISCUSSION with Abraham over how many people to kill proves he was contemplating the issue. If it was set in stone, like you so want it to be, he wouldn't be having a discusion over it.
Conversation over an issue implies thought and contemplation. Otherwise god wouldnt have even amused Abraham with how many people to kill.

Its simple logic man.

All I have asked from you is to prove your point. Yet you refuse. Yoo have refused to even quote your source correctly. Which by the way you still haven't addressed that issue.

As far as the source. I changed "SMooshing" to "Destroying." Being as the origional source was meant to be told to children, I thought the members here on ATS were mature enough to handle the word Destroy. I mean. Or is this another case of exact wording for you. Its funny. That Christian was able to grasp the fact that god was thinking about destroying, i'm sorry, "smooshing" the city, why is it so hard for you?

Why do you refuse to show me from a bible the point you are making. You say it is a simple concept, yet you refuse to provide evidence for it. If it is so simple why can't you provide proof for it?

Already answered. I mean. God did talk to Abraham didn't he?
If you have a problem with the fact that god was thinking. That is totally your problem. If you even read my origional post without your blinders on, you would realize that I said a theologian on the History channel pointed out that this was the only time that god was seen thinking over an issue. I provided a source which backed that claim up. I'm sorry but i'm going to believe a theologian and my common sense before I believe a nobody member on ATS, who thinks he such a great debater, yet dodges the real questions and focuses on the absurdness of whether or not it really said the word "think" in the bible.

Lots of concepts exist. I have lots of ideas too. The existance of a concept dosen't make it a truth. You have to back up your concept with proof, which you seem to be in short supply. Come on now. Pretty please with sugar on top.. Show me your evidence.

Now thats a funny statement comming from a person who believes in god ;lol
I can say I walked to the store, I am going to the store or I drove to the store. It all implies the same action...of going somewhere. An argument over that is an argument over semantics. And thats all you have done so far.
The evidence shows that god was contemplating and haggling the fate of the city with Abraham. So please, if you have evidence that shows god had his mind made up, implying he was just teaching Abraham a lesson in God like humor, PLEASE please, with sugar on top, present that. Otherwise if you dont have anything useful to contribute in this thread other than trolling, please stay out of it.



[edit on 11-4-2007 by xEphon]

Just want to jump in here. God was going to destroy the cities PERIOD, no question of it, and when Abraham heard this he asked God not to if he could find, in the last question, 10 righteous men. God is God, so he listened to Abrahams plea, but notice in Genesis chapter 19 that God tells Lot and his family to leave the city, but destroys it without another word from Abraham. So therefore the little 'debate' God had with Abraham didn't figure in the final outcome anyway. So Abraham didn't change God's mind, which was the whole point of the OPs post, wasn't it? God being indecisive? Obviously he wasn't.

Basic Bible hermeneutics. Don't just read the one passage, read the passages on either side to get it in context.

[edit on 11/4/07 by jimboman]

Thank you Jimboman.

It wasnt so much that I was saying god was indecisive, but rather he was being misleading to Abraham. He told Abraham to find 10 righteous people yet still destroyed the city. So that means that god had already decided to destroy the city regardless of the conversation he had with Abraham. He was just entertaining Abraham by telling him to find 10 righteous because god knew it didn't matter what the number was...Sodom and Gamorrah was going to be destroyed.

Is this not deceitful?

Not really. God knew that there wasn't 10 righteous people in the city. He was just letting Abraham 'go off on one'. Who as a parent has decided to do something, but your child doesn't like it and tries to change your mind, and you say 'ok, ok' just to shut the child up then go and do what you were going to do anyway. It's not deceitful, it's being a parent. God is our spiritual father after all.

In the end he did save 3 people anyway (Lot's wife looked back when she was told not to). I don't know what the 'pillar of salt' thing was all about. Maybe some sort of chemical reaction.

[edit on 11/4/07 by jimboman]

Originally posted by Dr_Suess


Its not exactly what you are looking for, but it is as close as it comes.

Matthew 10:34-39

34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;

36and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

37"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

38"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

39"He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

source for qoute

.

You're right, it's not what I was looking for. In none of those scriptures, does Jesus tell anyone to maim,hurt and certainly did not tell them to kill anyone. No where. In contrast, there are places in the Old Testament where "God" told people to go out and kill. Literally...

[edit on 11-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Troll_Seus this is the last im going to entertain your ignorance.

I must be a troll if I don't agree with? Your name calling only shows your level of maturity.

There mere fact that he was having a DISCUSSION with Abraham over how many people to kill proves he was contemplating the issue.

How does this prove God was contemplating the issue. I am having a discussion with you right now, but I am not contemplating my position. My position has been the same since we started.

i'm sorry, "smooshing" the city, why is it so hard for you?

Finally. The only reason I made this an issue is it goes towards your credibility. Why should I trust anything you say when you can't even be trusted to QUOTE people accurately.

I provided a source which backed that claim up

Your source was a childrens story. I am not sure why you find it so hard to make your point using the bible. Your claim is that you can show how God operates, but you seem to only be able to do that through a childrens story. Your source does not back your claim up. Your original claim was that the word "thinking" was mentioned in the bible. This was a fact easy to disprove.

before I believe a nobody member on ATS,

Ouch, another dig. guess if you can't make a good point you can always try name calling.

I can say I walked to the store, I am going to the store or I drove to the store. It all implies the same action...of going somewhere.

If the dicussion is HOW you got to the store then all your above statements are important to the discussion. Unless you forgot the discussion is HOW God decides to destroy sodom.

The evidence shows that god was contemplating and haggling the fate of the city with Abraham.

What evidence? You have provided none. To prove yor point you need to show somewhere in the bible that God thought of doing something else besides destroying the city, but you can't because it is not there. All you have done is make assumptions.

So please, if you have evidence that shows god had his mind made up,

17 The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,
source

Yep sure do. Look there. This takes place before Abraham pleads for the city. If you had actually looked in a BIBLE you might have seen that. MMM that sugar is sweet.

Otherwise if you dont have anything useful to contribute in this thread other than trolling, please stay out of it.

I am sorry that you feel that I should just accept what you say as proof. I am sorry that you feel my dissagreement with you is trolling.

Fine. I'll concede for the sake of argument, that god never "thought" about destroying the city. He knew all along that the city would be destroyed.

So why did he tell Abraham if he could find 10 righteous men he would spare the city? He either A.) Lied to Abraham since he was going to destroy the city no matter what B.) Didn't actually know how many righteous men existed in the city C.) Knew how many righteous men were in the city, but entertained Abraham with a nice barter anyway.

Lets see what your source says.

"20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, 21I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know."

www.biblegateway.com...

Based on the source that you provided. It seems B is the correct choice. Since you take the bible literal, and it literally says

21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know

That says that god heard second hand (based on the outcry that come to me) about the sins of Sodom. He then had to check (by way of his angels going to Sodom I assume) whether or not his findings matched those of the outcry. That alone would make me question the omnipotent and omniscient person you call God in the Old Testament.

Based on your concept of God. Does this make any sense?

I'm not saying that God doesnt exist. I just don't think that the person who was talking to Abraham was it. Jesus had a much better relationship with the real deal.




[edit on 11-4-2007 by xEphon]