Why does God need a book?

[OnceConvinced]

The bible tells us about the Book of Life, which contains the names of those who have been saved and are going to Heaven. If your name does not appear you go to Hell. (Chick Tracts even have God asking the chief Angel "Does his name appear in the book of life?")

There are two issues I have with this (and topics for discussion):

1) If God is all knowing and he knows each of us personally, then why does he need a book to record our names? Santa doesn't need a book to know who's naughty and nice. He just knows. But God needs a book. Why does he need a book when he is all knowing?

2) Why a book? Wouldn't they have really amazing technology in Heaven? You'd think they'd have computers, perhaps even something superior to computers. If the bible had described some kind of metal box that contained all the names... or perhaps a flat round disk, that would go a long way to showing that the bible was divine and not just ancient man's ignorance. Imagine how huge the book would have to be! It would be mammoth. So why use a book rather than some other form of data storage?

Feel free to speculate, even if you have nothing solid.

[Goat]

.

but in a metaphoric or figurative sense has NO LITERAL need of anything, including books.

WOW, can someone argue for how this is not an irrational statement!?

Who thinks this statement is a rational thing to declare?

I consider it quite rational to state that an imaginary character (or metaphoric or figurative) has no literal (real world) need of anything.

I consider it irrational to think that imaginary (metaphoric / figurative) fairies need literal food. Do you disagree?

I kind of do disagree, because Christ is not a fairy tell.. Have you ever wrote an abstract for an undergraduate research paper?

If you told them the metaphors and figurative had no literal value... You would be laughed at...

While it is not a 'fairy tale', can you show that it is history , rather than the a tale, a myth , a legend or just pure imagination?

[DefenderofTruth]

.

but in a metaphoric or figurative sense has NO LITERAL need of anything, including books.

WOW, can someone argue for how this is not an irrational statement!?

Who thinks this statement is a rational thing to declare?

I consider it quite rational to state that an imaginary character (or metaphoric or figurative) has no literal (real world) need of anything.

I consider it irrational to think that imaginary (metaphoric / figurative) fairies need literal food. Do you disagree?

I kind of do disagree, because Christ is not a fairy tell.. Have you ever wrote an abstract for an undergraduate research paper?

If you told them the metaphors and figurative had no literal value... You would be laughed at...

While it is not a 'fairy tale', can you show that it is history , rather than the a tale, a myth , a legend or just pure imagination?

i certainly can, but please tell me what you think is non historical? Do you think Jesus was real? Paul? John the baptist? Ancient Israelites? 12 tribes of the Jew?

Do you think these things are "just pure imagination", like you said?

[DefenderofTruth]

As for, using metaphoric and figurative talk to express an idea... That has no literal value? Why would you reject a means of communication? You think that wouldn't limit yourself in communicating abstract ideas? Do you really think thats a rational thing to say?

For instance, what about "Utopia" by Thomas More? Or 1989, or Animal Farm by George Orwell?


If someone had a dream with mystical qualities, are they not aloud to convey that dream to another person? Does that make sense?

Do you think an English professor would agree with you that figurative speech has no value? Can you link evidence?

You really don't think thats irrational?

[arian]

[Replying to post 72 by DefenderofTruth]

I'm pretty much on the same page with you DefenderofTruth, .. I think!?
I was just browsing to see if there is something out there that could explain how we define 'Truth' and ran into this guy René Descartes (1596—1650) (Remember I wrote this down for me for reference purposes, I'm sure you all know about all these different concepts already)

Descartes attempted to address the former issue via his method of doubt. His basic strategy was to consider false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. This “hyperbolic doubt� then serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers to be an unprejudiced search for the truth. This clearing of his previously held beliefs then puts him at an epistemological ground-zero.

So I look up;

Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Epistemologists concern themselves with a number of tasks, which we might sort into two categories.

First, we must determine the nature of knowledge; that is, what does it mean to say that someone knows, or fails to know, something?

Second, we must determine the extent of human knowledge; that is, how much do we, or can we, know? How can we use our reason, our senses, the testimony of others, and other resources to acquire knowledge? Are there limits to what we can know?

a. Belief

Let us begin with the observation that knowledge is a mental state; that is, knowledge exists in one's mind, and unthinking things cannot know anything. Further, knowledge is a specific kind of mental state. While "that"-clauses can also be used to describe desires and intentions, these cannot constitute knowledge. Rather, knowledge is a kind of belief. If one has no beliefs about a particular matter, one cannot have knowledge about it.

.. Similarly, thoughts that an individual has never entertained are not among his beliefs, and thus cannot be included in his body of knowledge.

Some beliefs, those which the individual is actively entertaining, are called occurrent beliefs. The majority of an individual's beliefs are non-occurrent; these are beliefs that the individual has in the background but is not entertaining at a particular time. Correspondingly, most of our knowledge is non-occurrent, or background, knowledge; only a small amount of one's knowledge is ever actively on one's mind.

b. Truth

Knowledge, then, requires belief. Of course, not all beliefs constitute knowledge. Belief is necessary but not sufficient for knowledge. We are all sometimes mistaken in what we believe; in other words, while some of our beliefs are true, others are false. As we try to acquire knowledge, then, we are trying to increase our stock of true beliefs (while simultaneously minimizing our false beliefs).

We might say that the most typical purpose of beliefs is to describe or capture the way things actually are; that is, when one forms a belief, one is seeking a match between one's mind and the world. (We sometimes, of course, form beliefs for other reasons – to create a positive attitude, to deceive ourselves, and so forth – but when we seek knowledge, we are trying to get things right.) And, alas, we sometimes fail to achieve such a match; some of our beliefs do not describe the way things actually are.

Note that we are assuming here that there is such a thing as objective truth, so that it is possible for beliefs to match or to fail to match with reality. That is, in order for someone to know something, there must be something one knows about. Recall that we are discussing knowledge in the factive sense; if there are no facts of the matter, then there's nothing to know (or to fail to know). This assumption is not universally accepted – in particular, it is not shared by some proponents of relativism – but it will not be defended here. However, we can say that truth is a condition of knowledge; that is, if a belief is not true, it cannot constitute knowledge. Accordingly, if there is no such thing as truth, then there can be no knowledge. Even if there is such a thing as truth, if there is a domain in which there are no truths, then there can be no knowledge within that domain. (For example, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then a belief that something is beautiful cannot be true or false, and thus cannot constitute knowledge.)

So if I got this right, truth is knowledge and visa versa, which requires belief. If you don't believe in something, then you don't know the truth. To say; "I don't believe in God/god/gods" is ignorance according to the above information.

"But" you say; "who determines what is 'truth'?"

It also says; if a belief is not true, it cannot constitute knowledge! I agree.

I believe the only way to determine 'absolute truth' is first to get to know our Creator (*I can explain why), and how He thinks?
But you may ask: "How would you know how God thinks?"

Here is where science (observing the world, humans and myself) comes into play, through philosophy, the seeking after the truth kind of philosophy where we determine, and define 'Absolute Truth', .. and yes, it is possible to define 'absolute truth' otherwise nothing could exist.

I believe this sums it up perfectly:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
.. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

.. Ahh, perfect!

.. which then goes on into explaining why God needs a book. God Himself doesn't need a book, just as we don't need a book to keep record of anything, but then we would be stuck in a limbo jumping from one idea to the next.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 73 by arian]
Hello, arian,
I like your post, but before I reply to it I would need to know how much (or more likely little) of it is your own thoughts. I am myself a rabid Cartesian and know that what you have written is not from Descartes's own fundamental writings (the "Meditations" and the "Discourse on Method"). I would think that you have copied most of this from some eloquent writer on philosophy. If so, with your high school education and "self-taught" internet and video education, you may not be familiar with a concept called plagiarism. Whether you have or not, it would have been better (if my surmise is correct) for you to have given us a link to the relevant internet site or a footnote listing the author and where his words might be found.

[arian]

[Replying to post 73 by arian]
Hello, arian,
I like your post, but before I reply to it I would need to know how much (or more likely little) of it is your own thoughts. I am myself a rabid Cartesian and know that what you have written is not from Descartes's own fundamental writings (the "Meditations" and the "Discourse on Method"). I would think that you have copied most of this from some eloquent writer on philosophy. If so, with your high school education and "self-taught" internet and video education, you may not be familiar with a concept called plagiarism. Whether you have or not, it would have been better (if my surmise is correct) for you to have given us a link to the relevant internet site or a footnote listing the author and where his words might be found.

Well hello Korah, thank you for your response.

Yes, I have very little schooling, but a keen ability to understand concepts no matter its difficulty. But since I didn't have schooling, I search the web for information.

Yes, I know what plagiarism means, the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. I Googled this, but there is no other info where Google got it from, so I guess Google may have plagiarized it!?

Please tell me this before I am hauled off to prison, if I say: "love thy enemy, do good to them that hate you etc." spoken from my heart, so if I don't mention the Bible, I'm plagiarizing? .. Just asking?

I'm like Bumblebee on Transformers, he lost his translator and I have no schooling, so we both depend on speaking from what others have said, I hope that is OK with you? Besides, I doubt you are anywhere 5 to 6,000 years old, so most likely you speak what others have said before you, .. right? Especially if you are a rabid Cartesian, you may speak entire sentences as Descartes may have said it, right? You may even write a book on some subject and unaware that you are using exact phrases from Descartes himself!? You know, like Joseph Smith, he wrote word from word chapters of the Bible and passed it off as the Book of Mormon.

In my post (I re-read it) I placed what Wikipedia said about Descartes under Descartes.
Then I looked up what Epistemology meant, and found a bunch of sights, I picked one that I could relate to and posted that under Epistemology. I have no idea if Descartes agrees with this definition or not, nor did I say he said it. If you don't agree with the definition of 'Epistemology', this is debate, so by all means I'm all ears, tell me where the error is in the definition, the last thing I need is learn a definition of a word incorrectly, .. right? I have absolutely no idea about Descartes writings other then what I found and posted to get an idea across on the OP.

I have been trying to expand on 'absolute truth', or what exactly is truth as eloquently as possible, which would have to come from quotes from eloquent people, not me. But what I say IS what I believe, but the reason I quoted those things was to see if others agree to the definition of epistemology, belief, truth so we can establish a foundation that we can build on!?

So according to what I quoted, then I said in that post: So if I got this right, truth is knowledge and visa versa, which requires belief. If you don't believe in something, then you don't know the truth. To say; "I don't believe in God/god/gods" is ignorance according to the above information.

"But" you say; "who determines what is 'truth'?"

But you know what, now that you mentioned it I should have said: "So if I got the above information right, .. or if I understand what I quoted above correctly, .. "

Anyways, would the information I presented be a good basis to define truth, belief or not? .. then storing all this in the brain, then in books for a more permanent record keeping should eventually bring us to why God needs a book?

I don't really want to know what Descartes thinks about this, but what you debaters think? I can't debate Descartes or any other great Philosopher, but I can debate you, so we can both learn! (maybe me more than you since you read all that on Descartes)

Thanks again Korah.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 75 by arian]
"I think, therefore I am" is the fundamental basis for truth according to Descartes. That is, the very fact that I think necessitates that I be thinking, and to "be" is to exist, the "I am".
Centuries have passed, of course, and this Rationalist principle has been used for any number of conclusions, including that God exists, but has also been critiqued as proving nothing more than that the thinker himself exists--and exists NOW. Did he exist two years ago? Ten minutes ago? So everything can still be QUESTIONED, the "question" then becoming how much "questioning" is too questionable to consider.
I have exaggerated the "question" here, the more pressing issue is whether beyond the personal "I am" the EXTERNAL WORLD exists. Yes, there is the very "real" philosophic problem of SOLIPSISM. Does ANYTHING exist beyond the original thinker? I think Max Stirner made a philosophy of this, The Ego and its Own, and some say Buddhism does not press beyond this point.
My personal revamping of Descartes's dictum to be able to "prove" something meaningful is that I say, "I think, therefore I was." That is, I must have existed before my present moment of thinking. Pressed farther on this implies that I or SOMETHING existed before....ad infinitum (or not infinitum, a few billion years will suffice for the less exacting). Most importantly this means that my soul already existed before "I" came to be (as Dale Adams), meaning at least the Mormon doctrine (well established from the Bible) of Pre-existence or for me, that Reincarnation is true (taking Jesus literally as correct when He descended from the Mount of Transfiguration).
But let's hurry, arian, you've thrown down the gauntlet and may soon be banned. (Maybe it's not too late to retract your taunting of a notable (rather immoderate) Moderator here.)

[Inigo Montoya]

Arain wrote

Yes, I have very little schooling, but a keen ability to understand concepts no matter its difficulty.

Objection, your honor. As citing evidence, let me present a summary of every post ever made by Arian.

''There is a non-man-made God that really means eternal consciousness linked to our inner spirit, but I'm not at all religious, ergo if I was on a spaceship traveling at C with a hammer and a string and a twin brother and a clock and an hourglass...''

[arian]

[Replying to post 75 by arian]
"I think, therefore I am" is the fundamental basis for truth according to Descartes. That is, the very fact that I think necessitates that I be thinking, and to "be" is to exist, the "I am".

Thanks again friend.
Yes, I remembered that phrased used when I was a kid, and finally it occurred to me that it defined not only who I am, but who I am a part of also.

Centuries have passed, of course, and this Rationalist principle has been used for any number of conclusions, including that God exists,

Yes, "I think, therefore I am" does explain a lot, especially if you study about this new IBM's Blue Brain Project. Have you checked into that yet? Let me know if you have, because what they are hoping to do is download the human mind (I know they call it "the Human Brain Project", but obviously it is NOT the human brain that they want to capture, but the human mind, and hopefully load it in a Matrix of some sort, which would enable man to eventually gain eternal life (Well as long as the Matrix could be kept active, powered)
The phrase doesn't mean that God exists, but how God exists. It explains everything, his Infinity, His Eternity, His consciousness and creative power, .. everything. It has given me understanding of the Biblical answer to Moses when God said: "Tell them 'I Am' has sent me to you!"

but has also been critiqued as proving nothing more than that the thinker himself exists--and exists NOW. Did he exist two years ago? Ten minutes ago? So everything can still be QUESTIONED, the "question" then becoming how much "questioning" is too questionable to consider.

To me the phrase; "I think, therefore I am" 'answers everything', how I exists, and how I am a part of the Greater "I Am Who I Am".
There is no time within "I Am", it is, or more properly since I Am is an acknowledgement that I exist, He is Eternal. Our mind is eternal and infinit, I have put it through all the tests to prove it.

I have exaggerated the "question" here, the more pressing issue is whether beyond the personal "I am" the EXTERNAL WORLD exists. Yes, there is the very "real" philosophic problem of SOLIPSISM. Does ANYTHING exist beyond the original thinker? I think Max Stirner made a philosophy of this, The Ego and its Own, and some say Buddhism does not press beyond this point.

The 'answer' to that is in the "I think, therefore I am". Look, can you dream up something, you know, like a new car or something? There it is, in your mind.
What about the earth, the universe, .. everything I can imagine and there it is IN my mind. So where is the EXTERNAL WORLD? That's right, IN the Mind. But since I didn't create the universe and the world, maybe I made the car and the toaster, but I know the things that are already here that (the little creator) man didn't create, so The Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind "I Am Who I Am" .. our Creator must have.

My personal revamping of Descartes's dictum to be able to "prove" something meaningful is that I say, "I think, therefore I was." That is, I must have existed before my present moment of thinking.

Wow, .. I love you already, .. you're a thinker.

The problem with "I am therefore I was" is that that would be impossible. Stay with me here, just stop and observe your own mind. Now WHAT is it that you see in the past?
Things, .. things that happened, where it happened, whom it happened with and so on. The 'THINGS' are of the finite and created, they are NOT your/our mind, but IN your mind. YOU, or "I am" are looking at the past IN the present, always IN the present. Are you with me so far? (I sure hope so, because I feel I might have a real thinker here finally I could grow with!?)

Pressed farther on this implies that I or SOMETHING existed before....ad infinitum (or not infinitum, a few billion years will suffice for the less exacting). Most importantly this means that my soul already existed before "I" came to be (as Dale Adams), meaning at least the Mormon doctrine (well established from the Bible) of Pre-existence or for me, that Reincarnation is true (taking Jesus literally as correct when He descended from the Mount of Transfiguration).
But let's hurry, arian, you've thrown down the gauntlet and may soon be banned. (Maybe it's not too late to retract your taunting of a notable (rather immoderate) Moderator here.)

Oh, if I am to be banned because of Zzyzx, then that was always in the plan. If you mean my dear friend Dianaiad whom I have a hell of a lot more respect for then Z, then she should not be a Moderator because there is a separation of church and forum here, Mormons, Baptists, Catholics cannot rule.

Look, I see you are a Mormon, right? That's cool, but who are you really? The way you talk with me here is that you are aware, which means if you are a Mormon now, you could become something else later, right?

Tell me my friend, if I was your neighbor and we were really close friends, but I was a Muslim let's say. And I came to you as a good friend and told you that Allah has called me on a mission to blow myself up in a bus full of American School children. What would you do?
Would you tell me: "Well, if Allah instructed you, and I see you shown me from the Koran that justifies this dangerous action of yours, .. well then, ..may Allah bless you, and may you have success!" ??

If you truly are wise and open minded as I believe you are, then you would not put your religion (which is usually made up by other people) above who you are. Remember, stick with "I think therefore I am", please, please don't let religion think for you. If we are to be Christ-like, it is Us, not a religion. You should always stay loyal to "I am", the rest like: "I am a Baptist, or an atheist, or whatever will pass away, but who YOU are will never pass away. You were created in your Creators image, not in the image of a religion, nor was our Creator created by a religion. Those there are not real God, but gods created by religions.

Hope to hear from you, I hope I don't get banned just as I find a true free thinking debater!? That would suck, because up till you answered my post I was getting really disappointed here.

So hope to hear from you? God bless you.

[arian]

Arain wrote

Yes, I have very little schooling, but a keen ability to understand concepts no matter its difficulty.

Objection, your honor. As citing evidence, let me present a summary of every post ever made by Arian.

''There is a non-man-made God that really means eternal consciousness linked to our inner spirit, but I'm not at all religious, ergo if I was on a spaceship traveling at C with a hammer and a string and a twin brother and a clock and an hourglass...''

LOL, .. you are funny.

Yeah, according to special relativity, if we took that hammer at 0.99999 C and threw it out the window, it would be tiny as a quark, and weigh near the mass of the entire universe, and would annihilate every star and planet in it's way! Talking about Odin's Hammer!!

Why, you don't believe in the non-man made God? Must every god be man-made? It sure seems like it since no one can understand the One True God "I Am Who I Am".

Take care Montoya.