What/Who created God?

[theVOID]

Changing one's mind infers a time line.

There is a timeline... God's interactions with us would intersect with a given point in time, since god can comprehend out linear experience of time he knows where in this dimension his actions will take place. Therefore he knows what he is going to do, when and where, even though time is not linear for him.

If he knows what he is going to do at any given moment then he cannot do something else, if he does then he did not know what he was going to do.

I think you're talking about an all knowing God that isn't also timeless VOID/

No, i am assuming he experiences time as a singular just as you are.

If God is timeless then his mind exists in all time at once/ He knows all things at all time at once. He cannot change his mind because his mind would exist at an end state of knowledge. Hence all knowing.

If his mind exists at an "end state" of time then he has a past, this is incompatible with your previous statements.

Changing his mind is not something a timeless God would ever need to do. Therefore it doesn't challenge his omnipotence.

No, but just because he wouldn't need to do it does not mean he can. I do not need to go to the moon, but that does not mean that i can if i did need to, my need for going to the moon is unrelated to my ability to do so.

Likewise, God's lack of need to change his mind is unrelated to his lack of ability to do so.

[fr0d0]

God would interact with any moment in our time in all time. As God is timeless there is no past for him... doesn't he live the whole thing as one moment?

If he knows what he is going to do at any given moment then he cannot do something else, if he does then he did not know what he was going to do.

His action at any given moment in our time would be completely perfect, so he has no need to change his mind, as that would imply an imperfect decision, which would be impossible.

If his mind exists at an "end state" of time then he has a past, this is incompatible with your previous statements.

I agree. He can't have a past.

God's lack of need to change his mind is unrelated to his lack of ability to do so.

God has no unresolved challenges, or he wouldn't be all powerful or all knowing. I think changing your mind is purely a time bound task.

[tavarish]

Good points fr0d0. Now I'll ask - what separates your claims from being mere assertions?

[theVOID]

God would interact with any moment in our time in all time. As God is timeless there is no past for him... doesn't he live the whole thing as one moment?

Does he not understand all perspectives of experience? If so he understands our linear passage through time and can plot his actions in relation to our experience. So even though he lives the whole thing in one moment he would also see things linearly. This means he knows the consequences of his decisions and how it affects us, and regardless of the suffering caused by both his actions and inactions both you and him believe everything he did was perfect. It seems to me that this changes the issue from a philosophical to a moral one, namely how can you consider his actions perfect considering the amount of suffering of innocence in the world?

I am also getting the feeling that your God is more mechanical than other concepts, would that be fair to say?

His action at any given moment in our time would be completely perfect, so he has no need to change his mind, as that would imply an imperfect decision, which would be impossible.

So you see god more as an unfailing mechanism than a mind? Fair enough, though if you want to believe that prolonging the suffering of impoverished children is a perfect action then that's on you.

What are the practical distinctions that you make between God and natural mechanism?

I agree. He can't have a past.

Then what did you mean by him having perspective from and end state?

God has no unresolved challenges, or he wouldn't be all powerful or all knowing. I think changing your mind is purely a time bound task.

Good point.

---

Good points fr0d0. Now I'll ask - what separates your claims from being mere assertions?

Nothing.

[fr0d0]

It seems to me that this changes the issue from a philosophical to a moral one, namely how can you consider his actions perfect considering the amount of suffering of innocence in the world?

As God knows everything, he is in a position to make that call fairly. To us it may look the opposite, but we don't share his perspective.

I am also getting the feeling that your God is more mechanical than other concepts, would that be fair to say?

I don't know what you mean by that. Oh... you mean he has to act in a certain way - like our actions are mechanical in that we have no choice really in what we do. In that sense, I think yes. God is predictable in that respect, which is how I think his nature is formulated.

What are the practical distinctions that you make between God and natural mechanism?

God has the ability to suspend natural law, although to us it would become natural law once enacted, if there were any observable effect. (I hope that's what you meant, or you are going to have to define natural mechanism)

I agree. He can't have a past.

Then what did you mean by him having perspective from and end state?

I was trying to work it out, which I did badly, as you rightly pointed out the mistake. A timeless and all knowing being can't learn as that would imply time-bound.

Good points fr0d0. Now I'll ask - what separates your claims from being mere assertions?

Nothing.

I agree.

[tavarish]

Good points fr0d0. Now I'll ask - what separates your claims from being mere assertions?

Nothing.

I agree.

Then how is this a rational argument? I could simply make any assertion and it would be equally justified.

[theVOID]

Then how is this a rational argument? I could simply make any assertion and it would be equally justified.

We are talking about whether or not fr0d0's definition of god contains contradictory attributes regarding omniscience and omnipotence... This isn't an argument for his existence, it's an examination of a concept.

It seems to me that this changes the issue from a philosophical to a moral one, namely how can you consider his actions perfect considering the amount of suffering of innocence in the world?

As God knows everything, he is in a position to make that call fairly. To us it may look the opposite, but we don't share his perspective.

How exactly can one justify the needless suffering of innocent children? You must have attempted to rationalized this to yourself beyond the stock-standard "god works in mysterious ways" bullshit, so what sort of thoughts did you attain on the issue?

I don't know what you mean by that. Oh... you mean he has to act in a certain way - like our actions are mechanical in that we have no choice really in what we do. In that sense, I think yes. God is predictable in that respect, which is how I think his nature is formulated.

Yeah, it doesn't resemble much the typical "god is a force with a personality" (for lack of a more efficient description) that you hear from the majority of Christians. What you have described so far might as well be an algorithm ticking away - which is precisely what nature is.

God has the ability to suspend natural law, although to us it would become natural law once enacted, if there were any observable effect. (I hope that's what you meant, or you are going to have to define natural mechanism)

Do you have an example of a time when the laws of physics/nature were different?

I was trying to work it out, which I did badly, as you rightly pointed out the mistake. A timeless and all knowing being can't learn as that would imply time-bound.

I think i get what you were attempting.

[fr0d0]

Then how is this a rational argument? I could simply make any assertion and it would be equally justified.

To me, rational doesn't have to include the independently verifiable, which I'm guessing is your condition here. Sure if your model was consistent I'd consider it as an alternative. I do consider atheism a viable alternative. I hold my current world view despite it being based on non verifiable evidence. I don't eliminate it because of that. To me it's the more rational choice. (No insult intended in my use of the word rational)

How exactly can one justify the needless suffering of innocent children? You must have attempted to rationalized this to yourself beyond the stock-standard "god works in mysterious ways" bullshit, so what sort of thoughts did you attain on the issue?

I have rationalised it using the method above. "We can't know the mind of God", or : I credit God with having the knowledge to decide fairly given all possibilities. We may find it unfair, but then we can't know what God knows, so our conclusions aren't fully informed.

Scientists said that continental drift enabled life on earth and so justify the associated loss of life. I agree with that reasoning too.

Yeah, it doesn't resemble much the typical "god is a force with a personality" (for lack of a more efficient description) that you hear from the majority of Christians. What you have described so far might as well be an algorithm ticking away - which is precisely what nature is.

I see.

Do you have an example of a time when the laws of physics/nature were different?

Haha!

Jesus was born without a father. We discount that as vastly improbable and more probable to have been his mother lying or fertilisation occurring naturally somehow. Heck we can call it a myth the evidence is so thin.

I appreciate the most annoying thing to you here is the separation from fact. I must concede your point there.

[tavarish]

Then how is this a rational argument? I could simply make any assertion and it would be equally justified.

We are talking about whether or not fr0d0's definition of god contains contradictory attributes regarding omniscience and omnipotence... This isn't an argument for his existence, it's an examination of a concept.

I thought that was a given.

The mere fact that a timeless God can cause ANYTHING implies he operates within a construct that includes, but perhaps isn't limited wholly to time. And such a God necessarily cannot be omnipotent and omniscient.

What my point is trying to determine is why fr0d0 believes this without credible evidence, and why he chose this version of God rather than any other. By his own reasoning, any assertion would be equally valid, including the rejection of such a belief. This is illogical... 1 cannot equal 1 and 2 at the same time.

[Spencer]

Ok, Ok. I created God. It was me. Hunter S. Thompson and I were sitting around one day, dropping acid, and firing semi-automatic weapons and we got to thinking. How gullible can people be? I bet we can make them believe there is a magic man in the sky who watches them shower and really cares if they win their basketball game or not. A plan was devised, put into motion, and the rest is history. Oh Mr Thompson, what a guy.