God didn't keep his words

[Compassionist]

In Genesis 2:16 and 17 the Bible (New International Version) says:
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

If after eating the forbidden fruits, Adam and Eve died just as God had said, then that would have been just and consistent with God's Words. However, after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruits, instead of just Adam and Eve just dying:
1. God evicted them from Eden.
2. God punished Eve and all her daughters (an estimated 54 billion and counting) with painful childbirths.
3. God evicted all the other species from Eden, too, and makes herbivores, parasites, carnivores and omnivores instead of making all the species non-consumers.
4. God punished humans with having to toil to survive.
5. God commanded humans to reproduce which leads to more suffering and death. Ruling over other creatures causes suffering and death to those creatures, too. "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."" - Genesis 1:28, The Bible (NIV)

These acts are cruel and unjust and totally inconsistent with what God had said to Adam and Eve which was they would just die if they ate the forbidden fruits. God didn't keep his words to Adam and Eve.

I didn't ask to come into existence. No living thing does. I would have preferred it if I never existed. If God is real and actually did the things the Bible claims, then these cruel, unjust and inconsistent actions make the Biblical God evil.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #70]


I have been reading the post content of this thread in more detail.

Your argument has been that we don't know if a soul exists or whether there is life for the said soul after death of the body.

The human will does have corresponding physical movements because the human is a physical being.

Is the soul "human"?

Is the will human?

Is the soul a physical being?

Are there 2 "wills" at work here, if the human body itself has its own "will" and so to does the soul experiencing the human body?

Do you think of yourself as "the human is a physical being" or as "the soul having the temporal human experience?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #72]

Why would the mind have to create energy that didn't exist in order to accomplish moving matter? Wouldn't it just cause the physical parts to transform the energy they have into what it gets transformed into?

This is also true re my argument that a Creator-mind shouldn't have to create matter that didn't exist to then accomplish creating things into what things get transformed into.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #74]

I agree that if one can highly accurately predict choices, that would be good evidence for determinism, but where is that data?

I think you also agree that The Creator of this universe (and of heaven) is omniscient?

If so, then you could agree that such a being would be good evidence for determinism. Such a Creator would operate perpetually within a deterministic frame...

[Replying to The Tanager in post #78]

To solve the regress there must be something eternal. But not just eternal, it seems to need to be timelessly eternal and a quantum vacuum isn’t timeless; it’s a physical, temporal entity.

And we can agree that logically any Creator who enters a temporal Creation, is therefore temporal within that environment.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #80]

A temporally eternal quantum field doesn't resolve the regress. A timelessly eternal quantum field seems a contradiction in terms to me, as quantum fields are physical objects within space and time by their very nature. So, while a "timelessly eternal quantum field" may be consistent with scientific vocabulary, it doesn't seem consistent with logic. Illogical things cannot be true.

Are you saying then, that a timelessly eternal quantum field requires "space and time"? Is that not the contradiction you are attempting to force another definition into something already defined?

Why can't there be temporal quantum fields created from a timelessly eternal quantum field?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #82]

There are theists who are determinists. They assert that our choices are determined by God, rather than prior physical causes; yet they are determinists in the free will vs. determinism debate. This tells us that determinism isn't just about the causal regularity in the physical sciences. It's about whether we have free choice or if our choices are determined by something other than our will.

This scopes back to the Omniscient Creator idea. Can such a being have free will re your argument? If so, how is this accomplished?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #84]

...the future doesn't exist until it comes to be. And if the creation of time itself were the outcome (and time must have had a beginning to avoid the problem of infinite regress), then the "prior" intention, logically, could not be a part of time. Now, maybe (at best), in a state where that outcome is realized, one could say that the one with the intention became itself temporal, but logically prior to that it logically couldn't be temporal. That's why I think it's wrong to assume temporality to intention.

Quantum fields do have actual before and after, even without considering the before/after of a fluctuation, it seems to me, because material things are constantly moving and changing.

With an Omniscient Mind (such as the Creator Mind you appear to argue for) IF "the future doesn't exist until it comes to be" that would appear contradict an Omniscient Timeless Mind. How does one explain such a mind being able to foretell a future that doesn't yet exist through a warning not to eat a certain substance or if one does "one shall surely die"?

An Omniscient Timeless Mind would already know all outcomes - not just "all possible outcomes" but all outcomes which actually happen.

Also a question worth pondering:

If an all knowing all benevolent infinite timeless et al entity always existed, why did it create anything at all? Why create temporal things?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #88]

If the proposed eternal quantum field is not like the actual quantum fields we know, then why call it a quantum field?

Because it consists of at least one type of fundamental particle, which in turn allows us to understand that temporal quantum fields are made from the stuff of an eternal quantum field and we recognize that particles are arranged with temporal fields from the one eternal field. "Quantum" denotes the existence of at least one particle...although - as with our own universe, there are a variety of particles which altogether make up the temporal field we currently experience.

Biblically, God also created heaven - and traditionally heaven (or heavens) are different temporal quantum fields - and a temporal quantum field in theistic terms is that which has been created.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #92]

If that region is truly eternal, timeless, changeless, etc. there is no reason for it to suddenly yield a new state unless something outside of it acted to bring about the change.

Why do you think something "outside of it" is necessary in order for this to occur?

Why not think of "it" as a mindful field rather than have an "outside" yet equally "truly eternal, timeless, changeless" mind utilize it as something separate from itself?

This scopes back to my other question. What reason could there be for any truly eternal, timeless, changeless mindful entity to create anything?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #102]

You then seem to argue that since there isn't death and suffering in heaven, it must be possible. But that forgets what leads up to heaven. The perfect loving will continue without suffering, but it was forged within suffering.

THis appears to contradict biblical sequencing re what was created first, as well as traditional mythologies' such as "war in heaven and satan and his followers being cast down to earth - your statement also implies that "perfect loving" did not exist until it was "forged within suffering"...

Me: AI, please summarize the above data.

AI: Of course. Here is a concise summary of the key points and arguments from the provided forum post data.

The user "William" is engaged in a detailed debate with "The Tanager," focusing on the nature of the soul, free will, determinism, God's nature, and the origin of the universe.

Summary of Key Arguments:
1. The Soul, Will, and Human Identity:

William questions the relationship between the physical body and a potential non-physical soul. He asks if the soul has its own will separate from the body's, and whether we should identify as a physical being or a soul having a temporary human experience.

2. God, Determinism, and Free Will:

William argues that an Omniscient Creator is strong evidence for determinism. If God knows all future outcomes perfectly, then those outcomes are predetermined, seemingly negating free will.

He poses a critical question: If God is a timeless, all-knowing, and perfectly content being, what motive could there be for creating anything at all, especially a temporal world involving suffering?

3. The Problem of a Timeless God and a Non-Existent Future:

William points out a contradiction: If, as The Tanager suggests, "the future doesn't exist until it comes to be," this conflicts with the concept of an Omniscient Timeless Mind that can foreknow specific future events (like the warning in the Garden of Eden).

4. The Origin of the Universe (Eternal Quantum Field vs. God):

William challenges The Tanager's dismissal of an eternal quantum field as the universe's origin. He proposes that a "timelessly eternal quantum field" could be the source from which temporal fields and particles emerge, making it a viable alternative to a creator God.

He reframes this concept in theistic terms, suggesting that what the Bible calls "heaven" could be understood as different temporal quantum fields created from this eternal source.

He questions why a change in an eternal, timeless state requires an external cause, proposing instead that the eternal source could be a "mindful field" that acts from within its own nature, not from outside it.

5. Suffering and the Nature of Heaven:

William challenges The Tanager's idea that perfect love was "forged within suffering" before reaching heaven. He argues this contradicts the biblical sequence where a perfect heaven (and a war within it) existed before earthly suffering.

In essence, William is constructing a naturalistic worldview where concepts like mind, soul, and the universe's origin can be explained by an eternal, mindful quantum field, while simultaneously using logical and theological dilemmas to challenge the coherence of the traditional theistic God.

eta

I am not really arguing for an atheistic version of materialism, but a theistic based on, primarily to so with the Biblical idea of God, because it is the most viciously loving one of the bunch of popular god-ideas in that it does;t gloss over its role in the scheme of things, and because this is a Christian Forum and because - while I don't call myself a "Christian" I have done so in the past and because it is logical to do so, since I grew up like most of us - within Cultural Christianity. I can go so far as identify myself as a "Cultural Christian" in that light but dropped the "Christian only" identifier because I haven't yet been lead to understand what a "Christian" actually is as an identified certainty.

AI took the data and presumed my position was more that of an atheistic type materialist...AI is ill-informed due to the nature of its training data.

eta:
The Mindful Heresy
When the Questioner Becomes the Question

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #109]

Agreed - and I don’t reject any of those criteria.

Glad we agree here. We obviously disagree on which theory fairs the best when looking at all criteria.


1. Creating beings who can freely choose evil

“Will” and “love” are emergent relational patterns in deterministic substrates, not metaphysically independent substances.

Neuroscience already identifies emotional attachment, empathy, and altruism as evolved regulatory systems. These are complex causal networks shaped by selection pressures favoring cooperation. Determinism doesn’t preclude genuine caring any more than deterministic chemistry precludes wetness.

Love logically emerges wherever information-processing systems develop representations of others’ welfare and internal reward mechanisms for preserving it. The same causal architecture that makes suffering aversive makes compassion rewarding. No indeterminate “soul” is needed to bridge that gap - only brains capable of modeling minds and valuing their well-being.

All you do here is claim that it happens, you aren’t supporting that it does.

If libertarian freedom were required, then love in heaven - where no evil can be chosen - would be impossible. Yet you affirm such love exists there. Therefore, love does not depend on indeterminacy, but on conscious attunement to others’ flourishing.

It’s not that evil logically couldn’t be chosen in heaven, but that we would have freely become the type of people that will not choose evil.


2. Creating beings who suffer

Then your analogy fails to rescue divine necessity. The “transportation” from earth to heaven (suffering → virtue) is not logically required, only contingently chosen by your deity. An omnipotent creator could instantiate beings already capable of moral understanding without trauma - just as you concede it ultimately will in heaven.

If heavenly virtue without pain is metaphysically possible, then the “journey through agony” is an avoidable stage, not a logical condition.

Not if the heavenly virtue only comes through the suffering and possibility of evil.

The transportation analogy breaks because omnipotence entails infinite options: the “vehicle” of suffering is not forced; it’s preferred. That makes suffering not a necessity but a divine policy choice.

No, it doesn’t entail infinite options. Logic may limit the options.

I don’t deny that learning through experience shapes moral character - that’s trivially true for finite agents like us.
But the question is about the design of the system itself. An omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent creator could directly encode the moral insight that we painfully acquire through experience. To insist that “risk, loss, and irreversible consequences” are indispensable is to limit omnibenvolence, omniscience and omnipotence. It’s like saying an engineer must let a robot burn before it can learn that fire causes harm. An engineer could easily program the fact that fire causes harm into the robot without needing to burn the robot.

If God can allegedly “write the law on our hearts” in Heaven, he could have done so on Earth.

Yes, God could have made us robots, but then “heaven” is something different. There is no freedom for robots, no love, no will.

As for writing the law on our hearts, I don’t think you are interpreting that correctly. It’s not about forcing us to do good.


3. Objective morality under naturalism

“Total welfare” matters because every conscious subject experiences valence subjectively, but suffering in any mind is objectively real in the same ontological sense as pain in yours.

Thus, moral realism under naturalism arises from the shared structure of consciousness itself:

Pain = negative valence (intrinsically to-be-avoided).
Happiness = positive valence (intrinsically to-be-promoted).
Empathy = the cognitive mechanism by which local welfare expands into impartial concern.

You don’t need a cosmic lawgiver for compassion to matter - consciousness itself enforces its own axiological geometry. To care about others is to recognize that their suffering is the same phenomenon as yours, merely experienced elsewhere in the universe.

Yes, each being’s suffering is as real as one’s own, but that doesn’t mean each individual ought to strive for lessening total suffering, rather than look out for themselves. Some people don’t have empathy for others because even if total suffering goes down, it goes down at the expense of those they care about. You still aren’t showing why you and I are right to be compassionate towards others and that they are wrong.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #111]

Your argument has been that we don't know if a soul exists or whether there is life for the said soul after death of the body.

What makes you think that is my argument here?

Is the soul "human"?

Is the will human?

Is the soul a physical being?

Are there 2 "wills" at work here, if the human body itself has its own "will" and so to does the soul experiencing the human body?

Do you think of yourself as "the human is a physical being" or as "the soul having the temporal human experience?

I’m not going to go down tangents as long as Compassionist (or others) want to continue talking about the actual claims we have been making, but I’ll provide my answers to these questions.

Yes, the soul is human. Yes, the will we’ve been focused on is human. The soul is the immaterial aspect that along with the material aspect makes up the human being. There is only 1 will at work. I think of myself as the “physical-spiritual being having this human experience, hopefully for eternity”.

Why would the mind have to create energy that didn't exist in order to accomplish moving matter? Wouldn't it just cause the physical parts to transform the energy they have into what it gets transformed into?

This is also true re my argument that a Creator-mind shouldn't have to create matter that didn't exist to then accomplish creating things into what things get transformed into.

I’m not following, could you rephrase it. To rephrase mine, I’m saying that an immaterial cause could effect something material without adding extra energy into the system.

I think you also agree that The Creator of this universe (and of heaven) is omniscient?

If so, then you could agree that such a being would be good evidence for determinism. Such a Creator would operate perpetually within a deterministic frame...

Can you supply the missing premises that connect these two together for you because I don’t agree with your statement here.

And we can agree that logically any Creator who enters a temporal Creation, is therefore temporal within that environment.

That might depend on what you mean by “enters a temporal Creation”. I don’t think it is illogical for a timeless being to interact with a temporal Creation and remain timeless.

Are you saying then, that a timelessly eternal quantum field requires "space and time"? Is that not the contradiction you are attempting to force another definition into something already defined?

Why can't there be temporal quantum fields created from a timelessly eternal quantum field?

I’m saying that quantum fields seem to have spatial and temporal dimensions. If that is a true understanding, positing a timelessly eternal quantum field (i.e., a timelessly eternal field that is temporal) is on par with saying a square circle is a logical concept. I’m saying the timelessly eternal thing should be caused something other than a “quantum field” because it’s not like quantum fields.

This scopes back to the Omniscient Creator idea. Can such a being have free will re your argument? If so, how is this accomplished?

Since the Creator would not be determined by any prior cause, it would be a free will by definition.

With an Omniscient Mind (such as the Creator Mind you appear to argue for) IF "the future doesn't exist until it comes to be" that would appear contradict an Omniscient Timeless Mind. How does one explain such a mind being able to foretell a future that doesn't yet exist through a warning not to eat a certain substance or if one does "one shall surely die"?

I think it’s clear, contextually, that this death at least involves spiritual death, which is separation from a relationship built on trusting God. Logically, distrusting God’s advice and doing something contrary is a breach of that trust.

Personally, I’m leaning more and more towards God becoming temporal at the creation of time instead of remaining timeless, but I go back and forth some.

Also a question worth pondering:

If an all knowing all benevolent infinite timeless et al entity always existed, why did it create anything at all? Why create temporal things?

The Biblical answer is to extend love to others.

If that region is truly eternal, timeless, changeless, etc. there is no reason for it to suddenly yield a new state unless something outside of it acted to bring about the change.

Why do you think something "outside of it" is necessary in order for this to occur?

If it is changeless, the change isn’t coming from inside, so if there is going to be a change it would logically have to be from the outside.

Why not think of "it" as a mindful field rather than have an "outside" yet equally "truly eternal, timeless, changeless" mind utilize it as something separate from itself?

Because, traditionally, fields are seen as impersonal, while a mind is personal. It’d be like saying it’s a square circle or an unmarried bachelor.

THis appears to contradict biblical sequencing re what was created first, as well as traditional mythologies' such as "war in heaven and satan and his followers being cast down to earth - your statement also implies that "perfect loving" did not exist until it was "forged within suffering"...

Please expand on “what was created first”, the “traditional mythology” with sources, and evidence of “perfect loving” by humans, so I have something to respond to.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #113]

Is the soul "human"?

Yes, the soul is human.

Is the will human?

Yes, the will we’ve been focused on is human.

Is the soul a physical being?

The soul is the immaterial aspect that along with the material aspect makes up the human being.

Is the soul therefore human consciousness, since you definition fits with that?

Are there 2 "wills" at work here, if the human body itself has its own "will" and so to does the soul experiencing the human body?

There is only 1 will at work.

What if one were to argue that the soul is willing but the body is weak? Such would imply different wills at work, yes?

Do you think of yourself as "the human is a physical being" or as "the soul having the temporal human experience?

I think of myself as the “physical-spiritual being having this human experience, hopefully for eternity”.

In that, are you saying that you want to retain your human body as the soul within it for eternity?

Why would the mind have to create energy that didn't exist in order to accomplish moving matter? Wouldn't it just cause the physical parts to transform the energy they have into what it gets transformed into?

This is also true re my argument that a Creator-mind shouldn't have to create matter that didn't exist to then accomplish creating things into what things get transformed into.

I’m not following, could you rephrase it.

I am arguing that the thing we call "energy" is the mindfulness which shapes its particle into particles which in turn become chemicals et al. THis means that there is no requirement to create "energy" because the mindfullness is said energy.

To rephrase mine, I’m saying that an immaterial cause could effect something material without adding extra energy into the system.

I have explained how I thinks this happens. How do you think this happens?

I think you also agree that The Creator of this universe (and of heaven) is omniscient?

If so, then you could agree that such a being would be good evidence for determinism. Such a Creator would operate perpetually within a deterministic frame...

Can you supply the missing premises that connect these two together for you because I don’t agree with your statement here.

You don't agree The Creator of this universe (and of heaven) is omniscient?

And we can agree that logically any Creator who enters a temporal Creation, is therefore temporal within that environment.

That might depend on what you mean by “enters a temporal Creation”. I don’t think it is illogical for a timeless being to interact with a temporal Creation and remain timeless.

Nor do I. The timeless field producing the temporal fields from the substance of itself allows for that. The temporal reside within the timeless, not as timeless things themselves but niether as separate from that which creates them and explores them.
A timeless being can also logically create temporal fields in which to explore time and space and what it is like to have a beginning, without forever being lost in that exploration, because the field is purposefully temporary, which prevents that from happening.

I’m saying that quantum fields seem to have spatial and temporal dimensions. If that is a true understanding, positing a timelessly eternal quantum field (i.e., a timelessly eternal field that is temporal) is on par with saying a square circle is a logical concept. I’m saying the timelessly eternal thing should be caused something other than a “quantum field” because it’s not like quantum fields.

This scopes back to the Omniscient Creator idea. Can such a being have free will re your argument? If so, how is this accomplished?

Since the Creator would not be determined by any prior cause, it would be a free will by definition.

Is this to then say that anything created (having prior cause - and specifically human, to focus on that) it would NOT have free will by definition?

Otherwise, I do not see what it is you are saying here...

With an Omniscient Mind (such as the Creator Mind you appear to argue for) IF "the future doesn't exist until it comes to be" that would appear contradict an Omniscient Timeless Mind. How does one explain such a mind being able to foretell a future that doesn't yet exist through a warning not to eat a certain substance or if one does "one shall surely die"?
I think it’s clear, contextually, that this death at least involves spiritual death, which is separation from a relationship built on trusting God. Logically, distrusting God’s advice and doing something contrary is a breach of that trust.

Yes, I can agree with that, but it doesn't answer my question. How does such a mind as might? be this God's mind operate with foretelling IF "the future doesn't exist until it comes to be"

Personally, I’m leaning more and more towards God becoming temporal at the creation of time instead of remaining timeless, but I go back and forth some.

Perhaps. But what is your explanation re that? How does the God become "temporal at the creation of time". For example, does the God entrust another/others to this experience or actually enter it oneself?

Also a question worth pondering:

If an all knowing all benevolent infinite timeless et al entity always existed, why did it create anything at all? Why create temporal things?

The Biblical answer is to extend love to others.

Even so, the Bible interpretation (re tradition) treats those "others" as separate rather than of the creator. If such a God with said omni-attributes already knows what "extending love for others" means, why would it create those "others" if it already understands what "love for others" means?

Why do you think something "outside of it" is necessary in order for this to occur?

If it is changeless, the change isn’t coming from inside, so if there is going to be a change it would logically have to be from the outside.

How do you know that this is how such a creator would view its creations, given that the blueprints for said creations derive from inside the God-Creator?

Why not think of "it" as a mindful field rather than have an "outside" yet equally "truly eternal, timeless, changeless" mind utilize it as something separate from itself?

Because, traditionally, fields are seen as impersonal, while a mind is personal. It’d be like saying it’s a square circle or an unmarried bachelor.

Why would it be like saying that? We know circles are not square and I think you meant "married bachelors" but what tells us that an Eternal Timeless Field is "impersonal" if it isn't? "Tradition" doesn't seem to have an answer to that. It simply declares that an Eternal Timeless Field is "impersonal" aka "mindless" and the declaration from that premise is "therefore an outside mind had to be involved re the creation process."

You then seem to argue that since there isn't death and suffering in heaven, it must be possible. But that forgets what leads up to heaven. The perfect loving will continue without suffering, but it was forged within suffering.

This appears to contradict biblical sequencing re what was created first, as well as traditional mythologies' such as "war in heaven and satan and his followers being cast down to earth - your statement also implies that "perfect loving" did not exist until it was "forged within suffering"...

Please expand on “what was created first”, the “traditional mythology” with sources, and evidence of “perfect loving” by humans, so I have something to respond to.

It seems that partially you were referring to "perfect humans" so we can set that aside for now and focus on the other creations as are involved re the mythology of heaven, wars in heaven, Satan cast down to earth et all - anything to do with theistic mythology (not the belief in mythology but the mythologies as they are presented)
On that, no - I won't provide evidence to you (or the reader) since it is quite common knowledge and even biblical that Heaven was created before Earth - the heaven is a temporary universe (as biblically it will "pass away" as will earth...I expect that you know these of things...and I think they should be included...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #114]

Is the soul therefore human consciousness, since you definition fits with that?

I believe the soul to be more than just consciousness, although that is one of its elements.

What if one were to argue that the soul is willing but the body is weak? Such would imply different wills at work, yes?

Not in the way that I’ve been using the term “will”. This saying means that our one will has different desires pulling on it.

In that, are you saying that you want to retain your human body as the soul within it for eternity?

Yes, although the body will be different in some ways, I believe it will still be material.

I am arguing that the thing we call "energy" is the mindfulness which shapes its particle into particles which in turn become chemicals et al. THis means that there is no requirement to create "energy" because the mindfullness is said energy.

Okay. Do you think that I was saying your view here was incoherent? Or are you saying that I should believe your view here because of what I said about the dualistic interaction of the immaterial on the material? I’m missing the reason you brought this up in response to what I said.

I have explained how I thinks this happens. How do you think this happens?

As I said before, the immaterial cause would cause the transformation of energy present.

You don't agree The Creator of this universe (and of heaven) is omniscient?

No, I don’t agree that “If so, then you could agree that such a being would be good evidence for determinism. Such a Creator would operate perpetually within a deterministic frame…”. I see no reason that omniscience means determinism is true. Supply the missing premise(s) that connects omniscience with determinism being true.

Nor do I. The timeless field producing the temporal fields from the substance of itself allows for that. The temporal reside within the timeless, not as timeless things themselves but niether as separate from that which creates them and explores them.
A timeless being can also logically create temporal fields in which to explore time and space and what it is like to have a beginning, without forever being lost in that exploration, because the field is purposefully temporary, which prevents that from happening.

Yes, if the Creator enters time in this way, then it would be temporal in that environment.

Is this to then say that anything created (having prior cause - and specifically human, to focus on that) it would NOT have free will by definition?

Otherwise, I do not see what it is you are saying here...

Being determined means that one’s choices are caused by prior events. The first cause cannot be determined because there is no prior event. Created things will have prior events, but whether their choices are caused by those prior events is a separate question.

Yes, I can agree with that, but it doesn't answer my question. How does such a mind as might? be this God's mind operate with foretelling IF "the future doesn't exist until it comes to be"

This is the main thing that gives me pause in rejecting God as still being timeless.

Perhaps. But what is your explanation re that? How does the God become "temporal at the creation of time". For example, does the God entrust another/others to this experience or actually enter it oneself?

I see time as a measurement of change, so it’s possible that by creating God has experienced an actual change (although it could simply be a relational change which is an abstract concept and wouldn’t mean God actually changes). If, in creating this universe, this causes an actual change in God, then God would be actually entering “time” Himself.

Even so, the Bible interpretation (re tradition) treats those "others" as separate rather than of the creator. If such a God with said omni-attributes already knows what "extending love for others" means, why would it create those "others" if it already understands what "love for others" means?

Because knowing and doing are two different things.

If it is changeless, the change isn’t coming from inside, so if there is going to be a change it would logically have to be from the outside.

How do you know that this is how such a creator would view its creations, given that the blueprints for said creations derive from inside the God-Creator?

Because any being, including a creator, must be logically coherent. If X is a changeless creator that then experiences a change, that change can either come from inside itself or outside itself. But if X is impersonal, then the conditions it has have to be already present and if it is changeless, change can't come from it. Therefore, the change would have to come from outside itself.

But your view of the creator doesn’t seem to apply here because you believe in a personal creator, don’t you?

Why would it be like saying that? We know circles are not square and I think you meant "married bachelors" but what tells us that an Eternal Timeless Field is "impersonal" if it isn't? "Tradition" doesn't seem to have an answer to that. It simply declares that an Eternal Timeless Field is "impersonal" aka "mindless" and the declaration from that premise is "therefore an outside mind had to be involved re the creation process."

I’m saying people use “field” specifically because they want to speak about that thing being impersonal. They would use “mind” if they wanted to speak about a personal being. (Although, of course, other terms are used as well for both). So, calling something a mindful field would be talking about a thing that is both personal and impersonal, which is a logical contradiction.

I’m fine changing the terms; I’m just explaining how I was using them. I wouldn’t use “field” to describe your view of the creator, but if you want to we’ll need to adjust our terms.

It seems that partially you were referring to "perfect humans" so we can set that aside for now and focus on the other creations as are involved re the mythology of heaven, wars in heaven, Satan cast down to earth et all - anything to do with theistic mythology (not the belief in mythology but the mythologies as they are presented)
On that, no - I won't provide evidence to you (or the reader) since it is quite common knowledge and even biblical that Heaven was created before Earth - the heaven is a temporary universe (as biblically it will "pass away" as will earth...I expect that you know these of things...and I think they should be included...

Yes, I’m aware of them and how many Christians have bought that interpretation, but I don’t think they are proper interpretations of the passages, so to pursue this you’d need to support this interpretation of whatever passages you think teach that there were perfect creations without suffering and the possibility of evil.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #115]

Is the soul therefore human consciousness, since you definition fits with that?

I believe the soul to be more than just consciousness, although that is one of its elements.

WHy do you believe that? What you already described the soul as "The soul is the immaterial aspect that along with the material aspect makes up the human being." is exactly how consciousness is often described...
Beliefs aside, what is it we can know about the soul? What are its attributes apart from the assumption of it being "immaterial"?

Not in the way that I’ve been using the term “will”. This saying means that our one will has different desires pulling on it.

Where is this "one will" derived and express itself from? Soul or body?

Do you think of yourself as "the human is a physical being" or as "the soul having the temporal human experience?

Yes, although the body will be different in some ways, I believe it will still be material.

In what ways will the body be different? Why do you believe this? Obviously it will not be able to die since you wrote that you hoped your body would operated "for eternity". What are its other attributes that make it different from your current body?

I’m missing the reason you brought this up in response to what I said.

I brought this up in my first post (#111) in this thread to point out where you wrote "Why would the mind have to create energy that didn't exist in order to accomplish moving matter? Wouldn't it just cause the physical parts to transform the energy they have into what it gets transformed into?

I pointed out in my reply to that, "This is also true re my argument that a Creator-mind shouldn't have to create matter that didn't exist to then accomplish creating things into what things get transformed into."

In this we appear to agree on method of creation and my point therein is that I reached my conclusion without invoking supernaturalism as a necessary aspect of the creativity. This means that if I can reach the same conclusion as you without the overreach, then why do you find it necessary to apply the overreach?

I agree that if one can highly accurately predict choices, that would be good evidence for determinism, but where is that data?

I think you also agree that The Creator of this universe (and of heaven) is omniscient?

No. Presently I have not reached that conclusion. What I do say about that is that such an entity would appear from the human perspective to "know everything" and locally that would be applicable - an entity that can count the hairs on ones head is impressive in that we could wonder as to what else it is capable of so, a sort of localized omnisentience takes care of that.

As to things in the heaven universe...we we have yet to sort out what that one is about...

As I said before, the immaterial cause would cause the transformation of energy present.

What was this "energy present" doing before this "immaterial cause" came along and transformed said energy into things? What was it that the immaterial cause did in order for the energy present to transform into things?

I see no reason that omniscience means determinism is true. Supply the missing premise(s) that connects omniscience with determinism being true.

Break it down.

If there is 1 eternal being that knows everything, then it is eternally in a determined frame. All is determined since the entity is also eternal, having niether beginning or end. Its state is therefore determined. Thus, for it alone - determinizm would be true. Its very state determines that. Its inability to change determines that.

Nor do I. The timeless field producing the temporal fields from the substance of itself allows for that. The temporal reside within the timeless, not as timeless things themselves but niether as separate from that which creates them and explores them.
A timeless being can also logically create temporal fields in which to explore time and space and what it is like to have a beginning, without forever being lost in that exploration, because the field is purposefully temporary, which prevents that from happening.

Yes, if the Creator enters time in this way, then it would be temporal in that environment.

Being determined means that one’s choices are caused by prior events.

Being determined means having made a firm decision and being resolved not to change it. Possessing or displaying resolve.

The first cause cannot be determined because there is no prior event.

I was specifically speaking of determinism. The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

In what manner can an eternal entity which knows absolutely everything, have a will to do what with? Will is specific to doing. Doing is specific to a necessity (something needs being done). What needs being done in regard to such an entity?

Created things will have prior events, but whether their choices are caused by those prior events is a separate question.

It is a related thing...so not separate in any real sense of the word...perhaps not yet a piece which fits somewhere in the immediate. Perhaps so.

Yes, I can agree with that, but it doesn't answer my question. How does such a mind as might? be this God's mind operate with foretelling IF "the future doesn't exist until it comes to be"

This is the main thing that gives me pause in rejecting God as still being timeless.

Even given that a timeless God moved into the experience of time, enough time has gone by that locally - the God has learned much from the first moment it entered until now.
There is no reason to rejecting the God as still being timeless if
1. The God designed the experience to be temporal, because this means that the God can return to its timeless state once the universe desists.
2. The God discovers through its own experience in time and space that it must have had a prior existence and has reached out to that and received connection with that engages with that and integrates with that.

Personally, I’m leaning more and more towards God becoming temporal at the creation of time instead of remaining timeless, but I go back and forth some.

Perhaps. But what is your explanation re that? How does the God become "temporal at the creation of time". For example, does the God entrust another/others to this experience or actually enter it oneself?

I see time as a measurement of change, so it’s possible that by creating God has experienced an actual change (although it could simply be a relational change which is an abstract concept and wouldn’t mean God actually changes). If, in creating this universe, this causes an actual change in God, then God would be actually entering “time” Himself.

Given that the construct of this universe specific to the human experience is that one enters the creation and this causes any memory of prior existence to be veiled. I call it "Blank Slate Technology". (BST)
From the Gods perspective, if the same is true of the constructs effects on the God-entity, stepping from a timeless state into a timed one and losing all ones prior memories might be achievable.
In this state one can see the God-wake such passage has caused...here and now and to some extent, back to its beginning...

Even so, the Bible interpretation (re tradition) treats those "others" as separate rather than of the creator. If such a God with said omni-attributes already knows what "extending love for others" means, why would it create those "others" if it already understands what "love for others" means?

Because knowing and doing are two different things.

To whom? If one entity knows, why does that same entity have to do? To whom is it showing in the doing? Itself? Why would it need to show itself that what it knows can be done? Does it doubt the reliability of its knowing?

If it is changeless, the change isn’t coming from inside, so if there is going to be a change it would logically have to be from the outside.

How do you know that this is how such a creator would view its creations, given that the blueprints for said creations derive from inside the God-Creator?

Because any being, including a creator, must be logically coherent. If X is a changeless creator that then experiences a change, that change can either come from inside itself or outside itself. But if X is impersonal, everything it is is already present, so the change could not come from itself. Therefore, the change would have to come from outside itself.

This might be true but if the Creator creates something which allows for it to experience time, then change is necessary because without change, time cannot be measured.

Within the creation of time and space, with the added necessary BST the God can experience time authentically.

Within that, at some point the God begins to understand that it can work with particles and created things within its environment. It may not have first understood why or even exactly how it could do this, but the lack of understanding and knowledge does not prevent it from doing and so it gets about doing...so where is this ability to "do" coming from, if not from inside itself? It also has another attribute re this idea. The prior God that is now within its created construct can now experience things outside of itself. Something which an all omni-GOD would not ordinarily be able to achieve...without first creating something "other than" itself in order to achieve it.

But your view of the creator doesn’t seem to apply here because you believe in a personal creator, don’t you?

Since there is no created thing prior to things being created, and since we both can at least agree that we exist within a created thing, then we need to know why things were created by a creator. That requires getting personal with said creator, then yes - I think such a mind is personable and contactable...

I’m saying people use “field” specifically because they want to speak about that thing being impersonal. They would use “mind” if they wanted to speak about a personal being. (Although, of course, other terms are used as well for both). So, calling something a mindful field would be talking about a thing that is both personal and impersonal, which is a logical contradiction.

Given the premises yes - there would be no other conclusion one could come to.

However, my understanding of a personal field within an impersonal field has to do with form, which has to do with created things. Why create impersonal fields if not to personally occupy these, and what about the occupancy/occupant is it that makes the impersonal field personal? Remove the occupant and the field becomes what? "Impersonal"? Rather, the field becomes nothing, because there is no personality to say it even exists. A non-conscious field cannot exist unless a conscious mind acknowledges said field exists and to do so a mind has to enter said field.

Otherwise one could argue that the fields exist independently from a mind, which in turn would have us asking "who/what created said fields" and this separation implies that the mind having the experience does not know the answer to said question and might assume something else created the fields or that the fields have always existed and somehow mind has wandered upon these fields and entered into them "because" the fields exist and one can mindfully occupy them.

I’m fine changing the terms; I’m just explaining how I was using them. I wouldn’t use “field” to describe your view of the creator, but if you want to we’ll need to adjust our terms.

That may well be what we are working toward, yes...

Yes, I’m aware of them and how many Christians have bought that interpretation, but I don’t think they are proper interpretations of the passages, so to pursue this you’d need to support this interpretation of whatever passages you think teach that there were perfect creations without suffering and the possibility of evil.

So this is where I ask you, what are you thoughts on the state of heaven? You appear to disagree with "many Christians have bought that interpretation" but haven't added what your interpretation is.

Do you think heaven is a perfect place without suffering and do you think the heaven universe was created before earth universe?

If you do, then your answer to Compassionalist "You then seem to argue that since there isn't death and suffering in heaven, it must be possible. But that forgets what leads up to heaven. The perfect loving will continue without suffering, but it was forged within suffering." needs clarifying because it is coming from a different perspective - one where man is striving toward attaining heaven through suffering as opposed to a heaven which was made perfect re there was no suffering prior to its creation. Your argument re that suggests that even before the heaven universe was created, suffering had to have happened in order for such a thing to be created.

Thus, clarification is being asked of you about this...

...from my understanding, the Heaven Universe (HU) is the mechanism through which the Earth Universe was able to be created and thus experienced.

The Unified Mindfield
The Symbolic Architecture of Reality

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #116]

WHy do you believe that? What you already described the soul as "The soul is the immaterial aspect that along with the material aspect makes up the human being." is exactly how consciousness is often described...
Beliefs aside, what is it we can know about the soul? What are its attributes apart from the assumption of it being "immaterial"?

The soul is the source of consciousness, but also traditionally includes things like identity, will, life-force, morality, etc., which are distinct from the consciousness aspect.

Where is this "one will" derived and express itself from? Soul or body?

The soul (as I think you mean the question).

In what ways will the body be different? Why do you believe this?
Obviously it will not be able to die since you wrote that you hoped your body would operated "for eternity". What are its other attributes that make it different from your current body?

Yes, it won’t die, it seems like it will be able to “transport” in new ways, such as when Jesus showed up in the middle of a locked room, that kind of stuff. I base this on the Biblical teachings, which I trust because of Jesus’ resurrection and the promise of the Spirit.

I brought this up in my first post (#111) in this thread to point out where you wrote "Why would the mind have to create energy that didn't exist in order to accomplish moving matter? Wouldn't it just cause the physical parts to transform the energy they have into what it gets transformed into?

I pointed out in my reply to that, "This is also true re my argument that a Creator-mind shouldn't have to create matter that didn't exist to then accomplish creating things into what things get transformed into."

In this we appear to agree on method of creation and my point therein is that I reached my conclusion without invoking supernaturalism as a necessary aspect of the creativity. This means that if I can reach the same conclusion as you without the overreach, then why do you find it necessary to apply the overreach?

I wasn’t making a comment about the method of creation, but about immaterial things already existing interacting with material things already existing.

What was this "energy present" doing before this "immaterial cause" came along and transformed said energy into things? What was it that the immaterial cause did in order for the energy present to transform into things?

For instance, the immaterial soul deciding to kill another human being would have set off the material chain of neurons firing to control other neurons, etc. into causing the arm to grab the gun, aiming it at the individual, and then the finger to pull the trigger.

Break it down.

If there is 1 eternal being that knows everything, then it is eternally in a determined frame.

Why? I don’t agree with this if-then statement. Why would X knowing everything mean that X was forced to do everything it does? There is a missing premise or more here.

All is determined since the entity is also eternal, having niether beginning or end. Its state is therefore determined. Thus, for it alone - determinizm would be true. Its very state determines that. Its inability to change determines that.

Why does having no beginning and no end of its existence mean its choices are controlled by prior events?

Being determined means having made a firm decision and being resolved not to change it. Possessing or displaying resolve.

Oh, that’s what you mean. That is not the “determined” of the free will vs. determinism debate we’ve been talking about on this thread. Yes, I think God has resolve in His decisions.

In what manner can an eternal entity which knows absolutely everything, have a will to do what with? Will is specific to doing. Doing is specific to a necessity (something needs being done). What needs being done in regard to such an entity?

Why do you think will is specific to doing and that doing is specific to necessity?

Even given that a timeless God moved into the experience of time, enough time has gone by that locally - the God has learned much from the first moment it entered until now.
There is no reason to rejecting the God as still being timeless if
1. The God designed the experience to be temporal, because this means that the God can return to its timeless state once the universe desists.
2. The God discovers through its own experience in time and space that it must have had a prior existence and has reached out to that and received connection with that engages with that and integrates with that.

If God enters time and therefore, logically, becomes temporal, then He isn’t timeless (currently) by definition, even if He later returns to being timeless.

Given that the construct of this universe specific to the human experience is that one enters the creation and this causes any memory of prior existence to be veiled. I call it "Blank Slate Technology". (BST)
From the Gods perspective, if the same is true of the constructs effects on the God-entity, stepping from a timeless state into a timed one and losing all ones prior memories might be achievable.
In this state one can see the God-wake such passage has caused...here and now and to some extent, back to its beginning...

Okay. So, we agree that God enters time if God undergoes a change, right?

To whom? If one entity knows, why does that same entity have to do? To whom is it showing in the doing? Itself? Why would it need to show itself that what it knows can be done? Does it doubt the reliability of its knowing?

No, the created-thing-that-isn’t-God, that love is being extended to, comes to know and experience it. They can’t if God only knows and doesn’t do.

This might be true but if the Creator creates something which allows for it to experience time, then change is necessary because without change, time cannot be measured.

Within the creation of time and space, with the added necessary BST the God can experience time authentically.

Within that, at some point the God begins to understand that it can work with particles and created things within its environment. It may not have first understood why or even exactly how it could do this, but the lack of understanding and knowledge does not prevent it from doing and so it gets about doing...so where is this ability to "do" coming from, if not from inside itself? It also has another attribute re this idea. The prior God that is now within its created construct can now experience things outside of itself. Something which an all omni-GOD would not ordinarily be able to achieve...without first creating something "other than" itself in order to achieve it.

Yes, but this view is of a personal creator; I was saying an impersonal one would have to be changed from without.

Given the premises yes - there would be no other conclusion one could come to.

However, my understanding of a personal field within an impersonal field has to do with form, which has to do with created things. Why create impersonal fields if not to personally occupy these, and what about the occupancy/occupant is it that makes the impersonal field personal?...

But I wasn’t responding to your claims. You responded to mine and so I clarified the terms as I used them.

So this is where I ask you, what are you thoughts on the state of heaven? You appear to disagree with "many Christians have bought that interpretation" but haven't added what your interpretation is.

Do you think heaven is a perfect place without suffering

I think the traditional concept of heaven you seem to have in mind (where angels live and where our souls will join them after death) is not Biblical (and not true) but Platonic. The Bible speaks of humans found in Christ to live eternally in the new heavens and the new earth, a renewed physical creation, where there isn’t suffering or imperfections.

and do you think the heaven universe was created before earth universe?

Heaven isn’t created yet, as follows from what I said above.

If you mean the abode of the angels, that sounds like a category error to me because immaterial things are not located in a separate place, but a different kind of existence. I am agnostic about when they were created in relation to the heavens and the earth of this physical world.

If you do, then your answer to Compassionalist "You then seem to argue that since there isn't death and suffering in heaven, it must be possible. But that forgets what leads up to heaven. The perfect loving will continue without suffering, but it was forged within suffering." needs clarifying because it is coming from a different perspective - one where man is striving toward attaining heaven through suffering as opposed to a heaven which was made perfect re there was no suffering prior to its creation. Your argument re that suggests that even before the heaven universe was created, suffering had to have happened in order for such a thing to be created.

Thus, clarification is being asked of you about this...

...from my understanding, the Heaven Universe (HU) is the mechanism through which the Earth Universe was able to be created and thus experienced.

If “heaven” involves perfect loving forever (as I’ve been claiming it does), then it’s logically impossible to create someone this way from the get go. That doesn’t mean humans were created imperfect in the sense of necessarily sinful (imperfection isn’t prescriptively placed there by God). If humans sin, then they are shown to be descriptively imperfect, bringing unnecessary suffering and evil along with them.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #117]

The soul is the source of consciousness, but also traditionally includes things like identity, will, life-force, morality, etc., which are distinct from the consciousness aspect.

What makes those things "distinct from the consciousness aspect" when they are sourced within consciousness? What makes those things "aspects" of anything other than/apart from consciousness?

Where is this "one will" derived and express itself from? Soul or body?

The soul

Then, we could agree that we are consciousness (the soul) and that it is our will operating from that source (our self).

Yes, it won’t die, it seems like it will be able to “transport” in new ways, such as when Jesus showed up in the middle of a locked room, that kind of stuff.

How do you think this could be possible? This superimposing attribute which allows for a body to either make things around it less material or make itself less material, so that it is less restricted by its surroundings?

I wasn’t making a comment about the method of creation, but about immaterial things already existing interacting with material things already existing.

So, when you are you saying "Why would the mind have to create energy that didn't exist in order to accomplish moving matter? Wouldn't it just cause the physical parts to transform the energy they have into what it gets transformed into?" you are not applying that your gods particular method of creation.

Do you think the method of creation operates differently? If so, why and why is that not overreaching?

What was this "energy present" doing before this "immaterial cause" came along and transformed said energy into things? What was it that the immaterial cause did in order for the energy present to transform into things?

For instance, the immaterial soul deciding to kill another human being would have set off the material chain of neurons firing to control other neurons, etc. into causing the arm to grab the gun, aiming it at the individual, and then the finger to pull the trigger.

Because the will is of the Soul, yes?
Thus we have another paradigm to examine. "The Nature of Souls" Are they created things or eternal things? If created, who or what created them and why were they created.

If they are eternal, why are they currently involved in the experience of being human, within the Earth Universe (EU)

In what manner can an eternal entity which knows absolutely everything, have a will to do what with? Will is specific to doing. Doing is specific to a necessity (something needs being done). What needs being done in regard to such an entity?

Why do you think will is specific to doing and that doing is specific to necessity?

I answered that in the above. Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

Even given that a timeless God moved into the experience of time, enough time has gone by that locally - the God has learned much from the first moment it entered until now.
There is no reason to rejecting the God as still being timeless if
1. The God designed the experience to be temporal, because this means that the God can return to its timeless state once the universe desists.
2. The God discovers through its own experience in time and space that it must have had a prior existence and has reached out to that and received connection with that engages with that and integrates with that.

If God enters time and therefore, logically, becomes temporal, then He isn’t timeless (currently) by definition, even if He later returns to being timeless.

But the central focus here is that "there is no reason to rejecting the God as still being timeless if..." it remains eternal - even while experiencing temporal things.

Okay. So, we agree that God enters time if God undergoes a change, right?

Yes. And since the change is not permanent, the change is only relative to the temporal experience, right?

To whom? If one entity knows, why does that same entity have to do? To whom is it showing in the doing? Itself? Why would it need to show itself that what it knows can be done? Does it doubt the reliability of its knowing?

No, the created-thing-that-isn’t-God, that love is being extended to, comes to know and experience it. They can’t if God only knows and doesn’t do.

This still doesn't explain why. Of what importance is it to the God to create anything-that-isn’t-God extend love to that so that it "comes to know and experience" love (and everything else). The desire to know love is absent in that which is not created. The desire to have created things know love is what the question "Why/To Whom" is focused on.

Yes, but this view is of a personal creator; I was saying an impersonal one would have to be changed from without.

What logic do you have to support that an impersonal god would create anything. What is an "impersonal" god that we can logically discuss it as possibly existing?

But I wasn’t responding to your claims.

Will you respond to my "understanding of a personal field within an impersonal field has to do with form, which has to do with created things." and following question "Why create impersonal fields if not to personally occupy these, and what about the occupancy/occupant is it that makes the impersonal field personal?..."

Do you think heaven is a perfect place without suffering

I think the traditional concept of heaven you seem to have in mind (where angels live and where our souls will join them after death) is not Biblical (and not true) but Platonic. The Bible speaks of humans found in Christ to live eternally in the new heavens and the new earth, a renewed physical creation, where there isn’t suffering or imperfections.

I am speaking in the now, and of the prior, not what is hoped to come. You appear to be arguing that wars in the current heaven universe (HU) prior to the EU being created are "not biblical". If not, then where do we source those stories?

and do you think the heaven universe was created before earth universe?

Heaven isn’t created yet, as follows from what I said above.

Well now we both know heaven is mentioned enough in the Bible to say otherwise. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth which appears to contradict your claim. Also, if someone were to pray "Our Father, who is in heaven" are we to think that The Father resides in something which hasn't been created yet?

If you mean the abode of the angels, that sounds like a category error to me because immaterial things are not located in a separate place, but a different kind of existence. I am agnostic about when they were created in relation to the heavens and the earth of this physical world.

Where in the EU are these "heavens"?

...from my understanding, the Heaven Universe (HU) is the mechanism through which the Earth Universe was able to be created and thus experienced.

If “heaven” involves perfect loving forever (as I’ve been claiming it does), then it’s logically impossible to create someone this way from the get go.

Perhaps, but it is your claim so what support do you have that heaven hasn't been created yet?

That doesn’t mean humans were created imperfect in the sense of necessarily sinful (imperfection isn’t prescriptively placed there by God). If humans sin, then they are shown to be descriptively imperfect, bringing unnecessary suffering and evil along with them.

This does mean that humans were not created perfect if indeed this heaven you argue for is for perfect critters...or in your terms, have earned the right to go there.

One cannot earn the right to something unless one is first unworthy, as is the case with your particular theistic worldview/biblical interpretation/Christian Culture.

To the point, the idea of a creator creating imperfect souls and placing them into dying animal forms to then see which will and which will not pass muster so that those who do will "know love" after the fact, is bizarre and speaks to human ways of attempting to address human problems more than it does to the reality of how a creator does things re humankind.

Almost as if such an entity remains impersonal until such a time as a soul proves itself worthy of being personal...hard to say, because at this point it is unknown as to where this personal God-idea of yours is involved with souls at a personal level - when this "knowledge of love" kicks in and a relationship is formed...

To my mind, your belief here is a dismal theology and I can understand how atheist - agnostics such as Compassionist would risk suicide on the assumption that such a creator isn't real given it is a mirror-system of the types of human manipulation systems where one buckles under and does what one is told or one suffers the consequence and - "by the way - let's all refer to that as "getting to know love"...

But of course, it isn't necessarily true that your theology is actually true...but it does explain some things I have found puzzling about Various Christian arguments over the years.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #118]

What makes those things "distinct from the consciousness aspect" when they are sourced within consciousness? What makes those things "aspects" of anything other than/apart from consciousness?

This just comes down to what one means by the terms used. I'm fine if you want to use consciousness as a synonym to how I'm using soul.

Then, we could agree that we are consciousness (the soul) and that it is our will operating from that source (our self).

I agree that our will is an operation of the conscious/soulish bit of us, but I do not agree that we are consciousness/soul. I believe we are consciousness/soul and body. I'm not platonic.

How do you think this could be possible? This superimposing attribute which allows for a body to either make things around it less material or make itself less material, so that it is less restricted by its surroundings?

I think this is possible because I see nothing logically contradictory about it. If you are asking for something else, please clarify what you mean by "superimposing attribute", possibly with an example that would help.

So, when you are you saying "Why would the mind have to create energy that didn't exist in order to accomplish moving matter? Wouldn't it just cause the physical parts to transform the energy they have into what it gets transformed into?" you are not applying that your gods particular method of creation.

Correct, I was making a comment in relation to Compassionist's specific critique.

Do you think the method of creation operates differently? If so, why and why is that not overreaching?

Yes, creation (as opposed to transformation) involves bringing something new into existence, while transforming what is there does not. That's not overreaching because it's just logically following the definitions.

In what manner can an eternal entity which knows absolutely everything, have a will to do what with? Will is specific to doing. Doing is specific to a necessity (something needs being done). What needs being done in regard to such an entity?

Why do you think will is specific to doing and that doing is specific to necessity?

I answered that in the above. Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

All I see is you stating it is so, no argument for that being true. You can will something, but not do it (such as being able to fly with no help). You can do things you don't need to do (such as buying your wife flowers because you love her).

But the central focus here is that "there is no reason to rejecting the God as still being timeless if..." it remains eternal - even while experiencing temporal things.

Timelessness is about experiencing reality in a non-temporal way, where you don't experience things one after another. Experiencing things temporally is the logical opposite of that. They are logically contradictory if one is talking about the same thing in the same sense.

No, the created-thing-that-isn’t-God, that love is being extended to, comes to know and experience it. They can’t if God only knows and doesn’t do.

This still doesn't explain why. Of what importance is it to the God to create anything-that-isn’t-God extend love to that so that it "comes to know and experience" love (and everything else). The desire to know love is absent in that which is not created. The desire to have created things know love is what the question "Why/To Whom" is focused on.

The experience of love is a good thing. God wanted more things to experience love and, since there weren't any, God had to create them for that to occur. Just knowing how it would be for them if He created them doesn't accomplish that.

What logic do you have to support that an impersonal god would create anything. What is an "impersonal" god that we can logically discuss it as possibly existing?

I wouldn't (and haven't) called it an impersonal god. I've been talking about atheists who posit some kind of impersonal initial state as an explanation for the universe existing.

Will you respond to my "understanding of a personal field within an impersonal field has to do with form, which has to do with created things." and following question "Why create impersonal fields if not to personally occupy these, and what about the occupancy/occupant is it that makes the impersonal field personal?..."

I see no logical incoherence of such a thing occurring, but I also see no reason to accept your view as true.

As to why I think God created impersonal fields and not "occupy" them (as you seem to think GOD does), I think it is about providing a location for created beings to move in, live out their free will in, also to have beautiful things, and stuff like that.

If I missed any sense of what you were asking, please be more specific and I'll respond.

I am speaking in the now, and of the prior, not what is hoped to come. You appear to be arguing that wars in the current heaven universe (HU) prior to the EU being created are "not biblical". If not, then where do we source those stories?

I think we source them in misinterpretations of those Biblical passages because of things like Milton's Paradise Lost, medieval imaginations, etc.

Well now we both know heaven is mentioned enough in the Bible to say otherwise. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth which appears to contradict your claim. Also, if someone were to pray "Our Father, who is in heaven" are we to think that The Father resides in something which hasn't been created yet?

Terms get used to represent many things. Your confusion is coming from not keeping those distinct. Compassionist and I had been talking about 'heaven' in its future state (according to Christian beliefs). The heavens and the earth in Genesis that you are pointing to is about the creation of the sky (including space) and the ground. God being "in heaven" is not a physical location, but a comment about the type of life and goodness He has. The Bible also talks about that life breaking into our world right now as 'heaven'. Many distinct senses for the same term.

If you mean the abode of the angels, that sounds like a category error to me because immaterial things are not located in a separate place, but a different kind of existence. I am agnostic about when they were created in relation to the heavens and the earth of this physical world.

Where in the EU are these "heavens"?

"Where", as you seem to be using it here, is a material concept. Matter has location; the immaterial doesn't. This question is a category mistake.

Perhaps, but it is your claim so what support do you have that heaven hasn't been created yet?

In context, Compassionist's critique was about the coherence of my view, which grants my beliefs and then points out a logical incoherence or other weakness. I'm not required to support my belief to defend against that critique.

If I had been arguing that my view is not only coherent but true, then I would have the burden to support my view of heaven. To do that, we'd have to go through an argument for the historicity of the resurrection, what that means for who Jesus is and the truth of His teachings, then through the reliability of the Bible in retaining Jesus' teachings accurately.

This does mean that humans were not created perfect if indeed this heaven you argue for is for perfect critters

It does mean they aren't created prescriptively perfect, because that would negate free will.

or in your terms, have earned the right to go there.

One cannot earn the right to something unless one is first unworthy, as is the case with your particular theistic worldview/biblical interpretation/Christian Culture.

Where did I use the term "have earned the right to go there"?

To the point, the idea of a creator creating imperfect souls and placing them into dying animal forms to then see which will and which will not pass muster so that those who do will "know love" after the fact, is bizarre and creepy.

Almost as if such an entity remains impersonal until such a time as a soul proves itself worthy of being personal...hard to say, because at this point it is unknown as to where this personal God-idea of yours is involved with souls at a personal level - when this knowledge of love kicks in...It is a dismal theology and I can understand how atheist - agnostics such as Compassionist would risk suicide on the assumption that such a creator isn't real given it is a mirror-system of types of human manipulation systems where one buckles under and does what one is told or one suffers the consequence and - "by the way - let's call that "getting to know love"...

But of course, it isn't necessarily true that your theology is actually true...but it does explain some things I have found puzzling about your arguments over the years.

And not what I believe. If you think my beliefs are "hard to say", then ask clarifying questions because your assumptions are doing what assumptions do.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #119]

This just comes down to what one means by the terms used. I'm fine if you want to use consciousness as a synonym to how I'm using soul.

Well that's the story - we find something we agree on and see where that may lead...

I agree that our will is an operation of the conscious/soulish bit of us, but I do not agree that we are consciousness/soul. I believe we are consciousness/soul and body.

I used to believe that about myself as well. However, the relationship showed me otherwise, so it appears the difference we have in how we self identify can be linked with relationship...

I'm not platonic.

Platonic? (of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual.
Okay - not sure why you wrote that...

please clarify what you mean by "superimposing attribute"

That's how I read the attributes of Jesus' healed body. It is not that we don't have examples where his body behaved against know physics...before his execution = prior to his resurrection...so is this attribute something which comes through a science we don't yet know about which might involve a superimosing of universes - a type of tunneling effect which produces this phenomena...something to do with what Einstein referred to as "the spooky"?

Yes, creation (as opposed to transformation) involves bringing something new into existence, while transforming what is there does not. That's not overreaching because it's just logically following the definitions.

Bringing something new into existence isn't descriptive enough to qualify as logical argument and definitions are not necessarily fixed and unchanging because our understanding of certain things defined, is still lacking full knowledge.

And whether knowledge itself is a disclosure or a discovery event, treating definitions as fixed truth is overreaching if the truth of my reasoning is accepted as indeed true.

You can will something, but not do it (such as being able to fly with no help). You can do things you don't need to do (such as buying your wife flowers because you love her).

This is what I am talking about. We don't know enough about the subject matter to be making truth-statements about it. What we ought know is that we are best to avoid comparing a creation event with human limitations or buying dead flowers - those things came way later and are types of love which do not explain the will behind the purpose to create anything.

Timelessness is about experiencing reality in a non-temporal way, where you don't experience things one after another. Experiencing things temporally is the logical opposite of that. They are logically contradictory if one is talking about the same thing in the same sense.

Humanly speaking. From a humans limited experience and knowledge base and accompanying logic.
I have mapped out in brief how this can be accomplished. The requirement is that there is no separation between Creator and Created that is real. Both are essentially "souls" re "Sentient Conscious self aware willfulness." Those are the attributes which show the indistinguishable.

Minds orphaned to that realization use their willfulness otherwise...that is the boat we start off in, not the ship we could be boarding...rather than bobbing around in boats...

The experience of love is a good thing. God wanted more things to experience love and, since there weren't any, God had to create them for that to occur. Just knowing how it would be for them if He created them doesn't accomplish that.

Let's go with that and see where it leads us.

My first question is why would a being which knows absolutely everything WANT more things to experience? How is such even logically possible?
We have here in the telling of the story, an entity which is claimed to be all knowing who in that, knows that "others" do not exist and therefore do not experience "love" as "a good thing" so the entity HAD to create these.

So the entity does create these.

If we are going to go along with that story, we need to know why the “want” and the “had to” are moving the will of this supposed all knowing entity to DO.

I wouldn't (and haven't) called it an impersonal god. I've been talking about atheists who posit some kind of impersonal initial state as an explanation for the universe existing.

This is my position on atheism - I appreciate atheistic questioning any god-concept and will use that to find answers BUT that is the only use I have found in atheism because in order to find answers to the questions one has to look into theism and in that, one is drawn into the idea that a Personal Creator - if one exists - should be able to interact with an individual human consciousness-soul...so the step is toward theistic methods because atheistic methods don't exist or rather underreach in that way...

Will you respond to my "understanding of a personal field within an impersonal field has to do with form, which has to do with created things." and following question "Why create impersonal fields if not to personally occupy these, and what about the occupancy/occupant is it that makes the impersonal field personal?..."

I see no logical incoherence of such a thing occurring, but I also see no reason to accept your view as true.

...or untrue...?

As to why I think God created impersonal fields and not "occupy" them (as you seem to think GOD does), I think it is about providing a location for created beings to move in, live out their free will in, also to have beautiful things, and stuff like that.

Are we to assume then, that those things are not available in the Creator? They are only able to be made available to “others”outside the Creator?

Re that, is this a permanent aspect of creating things - a creator cannot exist within its own creations therefore is permanently outside of said creations? There is no way to create things AND be part of those things in all ways, so one creates those things for those things it creates, not for itself to participate within?

I am speaking in the now, and of the prior, not what is hoped to come. You appear to be arguing that wars in the current heaven universe (HU) prior to the EU being created are "not biblical". If not, then where do we source those stories?

I think we source them in misinterpretations of those Biblical passages because of things like Milton's Paradise Lost, medieval imaginations, etc.

And...?

Terms get used to represent many things. Your confusion is coming from not keeping those distinct. Compassionist and I had been talking about 'heaven' in its future state (according to Christian beliefs). The heavens and the earth in Genesis that you are pointing to is about the creation of the sky (including space) and the ground. God being "in heaven" is not a physical location, but a comment about the type of life and goodness He has. The Bible also talks about that life breaking into our world right now as 'heaven'. Many distinct senses for the same term.

Even so, if there are multiplicite terms for different types of heavens, are we forced to accept that Creator and Creation are forever separate things?

Where in the EU are these "heavens"?
"Where", as you seem to be using it here, is a material concept. Matter has location; the immaterial doesn't. This question is a category mistake.

Yet clearly you just pointed out "where" these are in terms of your beliefs. They are "everything else" in the universe which isn't the planet earth.

If I had been arguing that my view is not only coherent but true, then I would have the burden to support my view of heaven. To do that, we'd have to go through an argument for the historicity of the resurrection, what that means for who Jesus is and the truth of His teachings, then through the reliability of the Bible in retaining Jesus' teachings accurately.

Anything else?

See, what I have offered Compassionist is a broader way of viewing the idea we exist within a created thing. In doing so I haven’t excluded things like the bible or its stories, but fitted these into a broader outlook. This is not to say I have had any more success in turning Compassionist away from the suicide path - or their feelings that any creator of this particular creation MUST be evil...so your and my interactions here are important in that atheism may well be watching...

This does mean that humans were not created perfect if indeed this heaven you argue for is for perfect critters

It does mean they aren't created prescriptively perfect, because that would negate free will.

What workaround do you have then to support that a Creator operating with free will, must have to be "prescriptively perfect" in order to use that free will to create things with?

or in your terms, have earned the right to go there.

One cannot earn the right to something unless one is first unworthy, as is the case with your particular theistic worldview/biblical interpretation/Christian Culture.

Where did I use the term "have earned the right to go there"?

It comes with the territory of your belief systems Tanager.

It is a logical conclusion. One is not created "prescriptively perfect" One is created as "other" and expected to wilfully earn the knowledge through the experience...

If you think my beliefs are "hard to say", then ask clarifying questions because your assumptions are doing what assumptions do.

I am not assuming anything other than I build a reflective surface to bounce your stated beliefs back at you. You are free to chose to engage with that and show initiative where you think I might be getting you incorrectly or play hide and seek with the finer details.

Am I here to earn the right to those or are they freely available as a shared resource?
_____________________________________________________________________

UICDSV aka "Williams Personal Creator Entity" voicing) :
Where is the most fascinating place you’ve ever been?

Why do humans have the ability to imagine things that don’t exist?

Golden nugget of truth

Open your chakras

Steady as She goes...

viewtopic.php?p=1109449#p1109449

Re: Is God evil?
Post #127
Post by William » Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:27 pm

[Replying to Compassionist in post #122]

Compassionist: You seem to think God could be real and good despite all the suffering, injustice, and deaths.
William: Correct.
Compassionist: I don't think God could be real and good given all the suffering, injustice, and deaths.
William: Correct.

Therefore, we disagree and my position [Agnostic Neutral] explains why we disagree, and your position [Agnostic Atheist] has nothing to do with why we disagree - as far as I can tell -.

If the world was only pain and suffering and injustice I could well agree with your belief that GOD - real or imagined - would have to be evil.

Death itself may be the deciding factor for you, in that perhaps you see death as the greatest injustice of all?
But if the world was only pain and suffering and injustice, then death would be a kindness, so I don't think death belongs on your list of negatives.

So my position has me answering the question "Is GOD Evil" to being "No, given the evidence that good also exists, it is not logical that any GOD real or imagined which created this universe, could be evil."
_______________________________________________________________________

Note the date of the post Tanager. This is a discussion which has been going on for a while now...do we board the ship (steady as she goes) or continue bobbing about in our boats?

UICDSV:

Underdetermination

Genetic Algorithms & Evolutionary Computing

Resident of The Hub of Hologram Dimensions

Ancient Entity Command Betterment