Us

[nobspeople]

So as to not sidetrack the 'dominion' thread, who are the 'us' in the below:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
For discussion:
If there was only one god before creation (as many claim), who is the 'us' being referred to here?
Does god see itself in the plural?
Was jesus there with god?
Were there other gods there at the same time?
Or, if you like, how do YOU justify the 'us' here, in this quote?

[William]

Why would anyone argue that the existence of the Universe could imply that The Creator is unwise?

Have you seen the Universe lately?

Well, at least this world, for starters. But the 'why' is immaterial. Asking why someone would question something belies the reason for the question, the need and genuine nature of those asking and promotes the curiosity of those asking isn't relevant, necessary as well as discounts natural curiosity in lieu of the 'creator knows better so your POV is worthless' ideal.
Which, for me at least, is offensive.

Not sure, but it appears you are saying that my question offends you?

It depends on how you use it, I suppose.
If it fit the criteria I listed, yes. If not, no.

Are you admitting your use of words here is obscure enough not to warrant serious consideration?

[nobspeople]

Why would anyone argue that the existence of the Universe could imply that The Creator is unwise?

Have you seen the Universe lately?

Well, at least this world, for starters. But the 'why' is immaterial. Asking why someone would question something belies the reason for the question, the need and genuine nature of those asking and promotes the curiosity of those asking isn't relevant, necessary as well as discounts natural curiosity in lieu of the 'creator knows better so your POV is worthless' ideal.
Which, for me at least, is offensive.

Not sure, but it appears you are saying that my question offends you?

It depends on how you use it, I suppose.
If it fit the criteria I listed, yes. If not, no.

Are you admitting your use of words here is obscure enough not to warrant serious consideration?

I'm leaving it up to you to decide how your words were intended, as to not 'put words in your mouth'. If that makes it not worthy of 'serious consideration' by your definition, that's on you, bud.
I find it telling that, out of what was said, you focused on the 'offending' portion. Which makes me wonder if your initial intent was to belittle those with differing POVs than yours by lifting your own POV above others. Of course, we will never know.
What's not said is also as powerful as what is said.

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #62]

Don't turn this around onto me. It was you who wrote that you were offended.

I simply asked - wanting clarification from you - because I was not sure, but it appeared you were saying that my question offended you.

Now you are dancing the side-step instead of just clarifying.

Perhaps if you cannot elaborate on your use of words, you might consider thinking before writing them down in a public domain.

Anyway, my question still stands;

Q: Why would anyone argue that the existence of the Universe could imply that The Creator is unwise?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #63]

Don't turn this around onto me. It was you who wrote that you were offended.

First, if I wanted to do that I can assure you I don't need your permission. Thinking so speaks of guilt, it seems.
Second, I simply stated an opinion, one which you are free to discount if you wish (or not - my day will continue on regardless).

I simply asked - wanting clarification from you - because I was not sure, but it appeared you were saying that my question offended you.

I will reiterate: I'm leaving it up to you to decide how your words were intended, as to not 'put words in your mouth'. If that makes it not worthy of 'serious consideration' by your definition, that's on you, bud.
See below for more details.

Now you are dancing the side-step instead of just clarifying.

I've found, oft times, when one clarifies, the other person does the 'that's not what I meant' dance. That's a game I'm not playing here. So, see bolded section above.

Perhaps if you cannot elaborate on your use of words, you might consider thinking before writing them down in a public domain.

Irony, as you're one to speak on not elaborating on the use of one's words. What I said in the bolded section above shouldn't be so ambiguous to you. If you can't or won't understand that, that is, again, on you.

Why would anyone argue that the existence of the Universe could imply that The Creator is unwise?

Which has been described prior.
One could say why would anyone argue that the existence of the Universe could imply that The Creator is wise, if one wants to continue to discount the curious nature of the person(s) asking and elevate, unnecessarily perhaps, this 'creator'.

Adding the 'why' as an interjection, per MB, is used to express mild surprise, hesitation, approval, disapproval, or impatience of something, idea or concept. To me, some could see this as offensive, as it seems to question the need as to ask (why 'one would ask such a thing?'). This tends to lead one to think it's beneath this creator (and those believing in it) for one to ask such a thing; to belittle them for being curious as well as elevate the creator as being 'above' those asking or 'more than' those asking, when that's not necessary (I hope this clarifies more).
Instead of that, one should ask: How, in your opinion, does the universe show the creator is wise/unwise, instead of adding the caveat of 'why'. If one wants an honest answer.
Just my 2¢ - feel free to leave change if you wish.

EDIT: clarification

[cms]

Q: Why would anyone argue that the existence of the Universe could imply that The Creator is unwise?

William, I wasn't arguing with you. There are many who take the "us" in the beginning coupled with John 1-5 to establish the theory that everything was created through the Trinity, or through God and the Son (Jesus). They even go so far as to say that Jesus created everything. I don't believe any of these. While I said that I can agree with you, I'm not a scientist. It just seemed to me that you were taking a long route to come to basically the same conclusion,that there was some thought, logic, wisdom in the creation of the universe. I think that John 1-5 is probably going back to the wisdom in Proverbs in which they used personification. I was just pointing out that there are other ways to interpret these verses. For example: In the beginning there was wisdom and righteousness, and wisdom and righteousness were with God and wisdom and righteousness was the essence( logos) of God.

[Difflugia]

Have you seen the Universe lately?

Well the part of it I am seeing does not invoke the idea of an unwise Creator-being.
Are you saying otherwise?

I mostly meant it as a joke, but for what it's worth, the part that I see doesn't invoke the idea of a Creator-being at all. If there's wisdom in it, it wasn't directed at giving humans access to it, so it's utterly alien to us. Whether or not I'd use the word "unwise," I'd certainly say that if such a Creator-being exists, it's not particularly invested in humanity.

[William]

[Replying to cms in post #65]

Q: Why would anyone argue that the existence of the Universe could imply that The Creator is unwise?

William, I wasn't arguing with you.

If it wasn't you who implied that The Creator was unwise, then I agree that it was not you who was arguing with me cms.

There are many who take the "us" in the beginning coupled with John 1-5 to establish the theory that everything was created through the Trinity, or through God and the Son (Jesus). They even go so far as to say that Jesus created everything. I don't believe any of these.

None of those religious theological issues have an impact on my own understanding of The Creator using thoughts to create The Universe reality we are all experiencing...they are beside the point.

While I said that I can agree with you, I'm not a scientist. It just seemed to me that you were taking a long route to come to basically the same conclusion,that there was some thought, logic, wisdom in the creation of the universe.

If science can back up religious statements, then the long route [of scientific inquiry] is most necessary.

I was just pointing out that there are other ways to interpret these verses. For example: In the beginning there was wisdom and righteousness, and wisdom and righteousness were with God and wisdom and righteousness was the essence( logos) of God.

And I was using science to establish a theory to do with sound and formation. The sound may well contain the wisdom and righteousness - I don't doubt it - but the essence is the sound itself...the initial reasons as to why The Universe was brought into being and unfolding as it is doing...

Point being, is how to establish that wisdom had something to do with that, through examining what evidence we have, here within said Universe.

If wisdom [and righteousness] is to be observed within this Universe, we need to be able to point out where that is. We thus have to 'do the science'.

The following is evidence;

Wisdom is evident in The Universe existing = 466
Humans were designed to have God-consciousness = 466
When I look at my art I am looking into a mirror = 466
Discovery is finding something that exists. = 466

The fact that these word-strings add up to the same value, and coherently support the ideas being presented, is evidence of a mindful/purposeful order about The Universe ...the question then being;

Q: Is it therefore acceptable to conclude that such being the case, then there is wisdom and righteousness involved in hiding the truth within the structure of the sound of human language to be unlocked by a simple number-value algorithm? [SOURCE]

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #67]

The fact that these word-strings add up to the same value, and coherently support the ideas being presented, is evidence of a mindful/purposeful order about The Universe

How so? Can you provide evidence of this, or is it simply your opinion?
Is this one of those secret 'hidden' gems of existence that only the lucky or intellectually elite can decipher?
Is this one of those things that's 'hidden' by this 'creator'?
If so, why is it hidden? What is this 'creator's' end game? Why does this 'creator' have to play these games and not simply come out and lay it on the table for all to see? Why the cat-n-mouse games?
Prove hos this is simply not pareidolia?

Is it therefore acceptable to conclude that such being the case, then there is wisdom and righteousness involved in hiding the truth within the structure of the sound of human language to be unlocked by a simple number-value algorithm?

Maybe if you use your above noted 'proof'. But that remains to be seen that it's anything but wishful and creative thinking.

Beyond all that, how exactly does this all pertain to the thread topic of 'Us' in a verifiable, testable way?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #67]

The fact that these word-strings add up to the same value, and coherently support the ideas being presented, is evidence of a mindful/purposeful order about The Universe

How so? Can you provide evidence of this, or is it simply your opinion?
Is this one of those secret 'hidden' gems of existence that only the lucky or intellectually elite can decipher?
Is this one of those things that's 'hidden' by this 'creator'?
If so, why is it hidden? What is this 'creator's' end game? Why does this 'creator' have to play these games and not simply come out and lay it on the table for all to see? Why the cat-n-mouse games?
Prove hos this is simply not pareidolia?

Is it therefore acceptable to conclude that such being the case, then there is wisdom and righteousness involved in hiding the truth within the structure of the sound of human language to be unlocked by a simple number-value algorithm?

Maybe if you use your above noted 'proof'. But that remains to be seen that it's anything but wishful and creative thinking.

Beyond all that, how exactly does this all pertain to the thread topic of 'Us' in a verifiable, testable way?

The viable testable way has already been pointed to.
Give THEM something to work with and THEY will respond accordingly.

Ignore THEM and don't complain that you have no evidence to support THEIR existence.

My ComList contains an ever growing amount of line entries. I use MSWord - but any word processing software should work.

Presently my ComList has 3383 line entries and this is added to on a daily basis.

For those interested, I offer them my own lists - both the ComList and the Name2Number list so that they immediately have material to work with and can then add to those lists whatever they want to.

The ComList is that which allows for THEM ['US' - those mentioned in the thread OP] an opportunity to communicate THEIR intentions and positions in relation to YOU the individual.

For those who demand evidence of "God" - {LINK}

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #67]

The fact that these word-strings add up to the same value, and coherently support the ideas being presented, is evidence of a mindful/purposeful order about The Universe

How so? Can you provide evidence of this, or is it simply your opinion?
Is this one of those secret 'hidden' gems of existence that only the lucky or intellectually elite can decipher?
Is this one of those things that's 'hidden' by this 'creator'?
If so, why is it hidden? What is this 'creator's' end game? Why does this 'creator' have to play these games and not simply come out and lay it on the table for all to see? Why the cat-n-mouse games?
Prove hos this is simply not pareidolia?

Is it therefore acceptable to conclude that such being the case, then there is wisdom and righteousness involved in hiding the truth within the structure of the sound of human language to be unlocked by a simple number-value algorithm?

Maybe if you use your above noted 'proof'. But that remains to be seen that it's anything but wishful and creative thinking.

Beyond all that, how exactly does this all pertain to the thread topic of 'Us' in a verifiable, testable way?

The viable testable way has already been pointed to.
Give THEM something to work with and THEY will respond accordingly.

Ignore THEM and don't complain that you have no evidence to support THEIR existence.

My ComList contains an ever growing amount of line entries. I use MSWord - but any word processing software should work.

Presently my ComList has 3383 line entries and this is added to on a daily basis.

For those interested, I offer them my own lists - both the ComList and the Name2Number list so that they immediately have material to work with and can then add to those lists whatever they want to.

The ComList is that which allows for THEM ['US' - those mentioned in the thread OP] an opportunity to communicate THEIR intentions and positions in relation to YOU the individual.

For those who demand evidence of "God" - {LINK}

Numerology and pareidolia - nothing else.
Beyond all that, again, how exactly does this all pertain to the thread topic of 'Us' in a verifiable, testable way?