Earnest,
Well, you believe that God is wise without a process, and that His wisdom is worth having, right? There's your precedent for non-magical inherent wisdom right there.
I have no idea about that.
Iolaus wrote:All the while that the bloke is suffering and the torturer accruing negative karma, there is also total purity and innocence. Sure, neither of them is aware of it, but perhaps you can become aware of it.
I gather that you mean in the sense that "the world is proceeding as it should".
That is not what I meant.
But I keep on telling you: when you analyse it carefully we are "controlled" anyway, no matter what. There are certain things that it is not in our nature to do, that we are biased against: this is a way in which our wills are not "free" but are constrained. You argue that it is because we have learnt our lessons.
Your example, though, was inadequate, because a lot of people do those horrible things that others cannot bring themselves to do.
But our natures may be constrained due to our human genetic makeup, and less constrained if our consciousness were living in some other form. But even if our wills do have some constraints, it does not mean that the free exercise within those constraints are not needed and important.
We seem to have a choice, for example, to dull down our awareness of God, which is a decrease in consciousness, for as long as we like. God would never force himself on anyone, being supremely humble and gentle. Yet, I suspect, over long aeons of time, eventually all entities will awaken.
Fine, but then why would an omnipotent God put in place this system where we have to learn lessons through suffering? Why not just cut to the chase and build us with all of our lessons learnt from the start, and avoid a whole heap of suffering?
Maybe after 80 trillion universes of 23 trillion years each (an incarnation of Brahma) he wanted a new game.
The difference is that in the Matrix there was another higher reality in which evil things were happening. Under my proposal, there would be no other higher reality: all would be well in ultimate reality.
No, the point is, you want to live in the Matrix.
Oh dear. First Leyla accuses me of whining and now you do. Can you recognize the difference between whining and arguing a point / making an observation?
Well, I didn't read her post. In my opinion, nearly every argument against God because of the existence of evil that I have ever heard amounts to the petulant whining of children. You aren't the only one. The problem isn't God, the problem is your immaturity. I mean that in the kindest way! I mean, I am not wanting to be insulting or single you out, it's just an observation.
Why would I be any less real if I were - like God - intrinsically perfect without that process? (please remember that this is from an if-then perspective. I'm not trying to say that "this is the way that it should be", I'm saying that "this is the way that it would be given an omnipotent God")
1. Nothing to do with omnipotence, as I said before.
2. You are intrinsically perfect.
3. You are an intrinsically perfect air bubble. Want to be more than an air bubble? Until you have
chosen kindness, you aren't kind. Until you have
voluntarily united your will to the will of God, you aren't anything but an automaton. Unless you had the chance to say no, you have never said yes.
I have sometimes had the thought, that our wills really consist of only one binary choice: yes to God or no to God.
Oh, I don't know its source, but I can describe it. Creative power is that which inspires great works of art, witty come-backs, inspiring new engineering works, etc.
When you know its source and substance, you might deserve an opinion on these matters.
I won't keep the light on for ya.
Well sure, it could be herself. But if God is omnipotent, then He is capable of overriding her choice, isn't He?
I don't know whether he can, but he never would!
He could equally have decided "No, my child, you have not gone far enough yet", and imposed a stronger morality upon her mind, couldn't He?
God may be knocking at the door, but you gotta let him in. He doesn't impose. That would be evil.
At the same time, though, you seem to be promoting the view that God existed before the universe did. So are you saying that God existed first, and then expanded His "body" into what we now know as the universe?
Whether a universe
must manifest at all times, or whether it can wax and wane like Mikiel thinks, is a question I have wondered about, but it may not really be a n accurate question at all. Because a universe of denser matter may not need to always be in a state of manifestation out of the ether, the void of pure potential, but that unmanifest energetic quantum or subquantum field/void would always be there. It may oscillate, as most things do. Consciousness would always exist.
Iolaus: The most logical answer is not that any entity is unredeemable.
Why?
Because return is the motion of the Tao.
Why would it never regain its sanity? All relative entities (to use Jehu's term) have but one source of their own existence. That source is God. That's the hell of it, Earnest. There is no alternative to God.
earnest: Well there are those who believe that we are each literally God, viewing Himself through different windows. Are you amenable to that belief?
Iolaus: Yes, but there is always a yes, but.
Please elaborate.
I thought I did. I do think that is a good explanation of what is going on here, but maybe there are other patterns going on as well, and I sense a transcendent aspect of God, in addition to the immanent. But I don't understand it.
Well if God were omnipotent, He needn't let those idiocies stand, need He?
Sigh.
Why are you looking to God for answers that we can come up with ourselves? What are we, insects?
My point was that if God were omnipotent, then He would have created us such that we weren't confused, and were operating on a high level of functioning. He wants the best for us, right?
I got news for you. Your God is a big statue made of sugar, and he got melted a long time ago. You're on your own.
You're claiming that it's impossible to create humans who are already perfect, but as I've written previously, there is precedent for it in that God - as you view him to the best of my knowledge - is supposedly perfect without following any path to get there.
I know nothing of God's path. God is not perfect, he is everything. All possibility, all history. He is the origin. Totally invulnerable. All suffering is his. All ignorance is his. All things will return. Only a finite ego would engage in the use of force. What you are advocating is a God who is a bully or who disrespects and distrusts reality.
Fair enough, my question remains though (and it's starting to get a little repetitious now, so I might leave it at this): why is all of this suffering necessary given an all-powerful God?
Yes, we are talking past each other. Please try to understand just one little thing: this is not about God's power, about what he 'could' do if he wanted.
Where did your God come from? Where did the Totality come from? These are questions that I have never seen a good answer to.
This is
THE Question!
It's a mind breaker.
This is similar to a question that Leyla asked me, and which I refused to answer her given the way that she approached me. I'll answer you, though, because you've shown me good faith. My provisional definition of God is "the being with the highest power to do good, and who is the model for perfection". As to what entitles my God to that name - it seems to fit within the scope of how the word is generally used. It's at least closer to what is traditionally (i.e. in the Judeo-Christian paradigm) known as God than the idea that QRS have that God is the Totality: their "God" isn't even conscious, nor is it good.
OK, but you have to get to the bottom of things. As you see above, that is the real question, and when you understand the magnitude of it, perhaps you will see that there cannot be more than one explanation to the causeless or self-existent property that is the fundamental attribute of God.
I understood you perfectly, I just rarely miss an opportunity to flirt. I consider it similar to paying people compliments: they generally appreciate it. I do understand that it makes some people uncomfortable, so if you're in that category then let me know and I'll hold my tongue in future.
I'll call the sexual harassment hotline, I will!
I'm not familiar with this particular bridal chamber. Where did you read of it?
Well that one came from the gospel of Thomas. But the wise virgins was in the regular gospels.
I have no idea. How did your God come to be, and who made the rules of logic?
You missed the point. Why is there a game God doesn't like with rules he didn't set up and can't alter? Who is more powerful than he?
Logic isn't an arbitrary decision of a whimsical mind. Logic is a description of how things work. What we call a rule of logic is a description of something we have understood about how reality works.
Truth is a pathless land.
