What does God do for fun?

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts

Posts

Total: 138
#91
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
The gap between us and God, is greater than the gap between 5 year olds and adults so the comparison doesn't capture the full immature absurdity of the question.
I'm only making a guess as to what it would be like with my limited understanding/perception. To me, knowing the beginning, middle and end of every story that can ever play out or exist seems pretty hellish. A god, where that is all it knows, may be different.. i don't know. It just doesn't seem like an enjoyable existence in such a state... to me at least, a finite being. I don't understand why however, it's such a big deal to some to think god would choose not to be god. I'd personally be glad it took that route. 
#92
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
The Truth comes by revelation
But revelation is also reasoning/imagination... but i would argue with some added endorphins and other chemicals that make you feel the rush of it. 

#93
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Living beings are curious bc some are purpose driven, then there are some that don't find purpose in anything. But, i would say the vast majority are purpose driven. What's interesting to me is when humans create some sort of A.I. we can download ourselves into. Bc in such a program, we will start to become more like this god we debate present day. What a crazy future that would be. Possibility being able to be conscious of everything at once, plus another infinite possibilities with such a creation. Which all of it is another interesting theory... maybe our purpose is to create god just like caterpillars turn into butterflies. 
#94
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Outplayz
You're going to fall into the trap of assigning human emotions and motivations to something that is not, purportedly, human in any way, even though he's described in various human terms as jealous, loving, kind, angry, etc. Of course you'd get bored, you have the experience of being a mere mortal! But god isn't like that except for when he is. Like that time he played that HILARIOUS trick on Abraham!
#95
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Isn't this basically what happened to Dr. Manhattan? 
That's right, i wasn't thinking about that when i watched the series and i usually correlate those things (if you're talking about the show). Manhattan is sorta a god in that universe. But things don't make sense when they introduce someone so powerful. If he knows everything, then it should have been impossible for the mere mortals to capture him... unless he willingly allowed it for another purpose. 


#96
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
You're going to fall into the trap of assigning human emotions and motivations to something that is not, purportedly, human in any way, even though he's described in various human terms as jealous, loving, kind, angry, etc.
Yeah, i said earlier all i can do is anthropomorphize this god. Who knows. It may be enjoyable being everything at once, but i tend to think people hate spoilers. And that's how i see god like powers... or at least an Omni type god. 
Topic's author
#97
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
even the most very basic life forms replicate because that is their purpose, things that do not have this purpose do not exist.  Since I have yet to hear an example of evolution (not adaptation) the most reasonable explanation is intelligent design which then points to purpose.

a rock has no purpose of its own, it just is
#98
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the most reasonable explanation is intelligent design which then points to purpose.
I see where you went with that... do you think a simulation theory/argument is a good one for ID? 
#99
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts

a rock has no purpose of its own, it just is

Couldn't a rock have a purpose like "redirecting the flow of this water / air"? 
Topic's author
#100
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Outplayz
I see where you went with that... do you think a simulation theory/argument is a good one for ID? 
sure I would see them as the same basic idea I think.
Topic's author
#101
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
no, that's a purpose you escribe to it, it's not actually doing it, it just happens to be there when the water flowed through, unlike a virus which replicates, changes, infects a host etc.  A virus that does not do those things, can't exist.  I use virus because that's the simplest "life form" I can think of.
#102
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I don't think I understand then your determination of "purpose." I guess a lot of people around here use the word with an invisible capital P, like PGA does this a lot, that life has no purpose without a set of beliefs. I don't see replication as a purpose as much as I do a necessary drive, not in this way. But in the end, you're ascribing the purpose to the virus the same as I have done with the rock: after the fact. Would you say once reproduction is accounted for, that all other 'purposes' are difficult to figure out? Like why the F are there so many disgusting versions of wasps? Wouldn't one of these nightmares have been more than enough?!?

Also what's the difference in your view between adaptation and evolution, exactly?
Topic's author
#103
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
why do viruses reproduce?  to create other viruses, that is their purpose as well as other things they can do.  A rock on the other hand does nothing, it does not purposefully divert water or air, it just happened to be in the right place at the right time.  viruses actively reproduce etc.

Would you say once reproduction is accounted for, that all other 'purposes' are difficult to figure out?
yes

 Like why the F are there so many disgusting versions of wasps?
adaptation, I dislike them as well

Also what's the difference in your view between adaptation and evolution, exactly?
Adaptation is the process of adjusting something to better match it's environment or situation.

evolution is the change of one species into two or two becoming like one, changing from one thing into something different.






#104
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Adaptation is the process of adjusting something to better match it's environment or situation.

evolution is the change of one species into two or two becoming like one, changing from one thing into something different.



What makes them mutually exclusive? Natural selection via adaptation is basically how evolution works. 
Topic's author
#105
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
naw when something adapts or is naturally selected it's the same organism but a change is caused usually be an outside/environment force.  Like the lizards who swim underwater and feed on the green stuff the grows on the rocks.  they adapted to this environment, those that did not died out (natural selection)

now if they somehow because mammals imo that would be evolution.
#106
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
We'll be egregiously off topic if I continue. Thanks for answering all the same!
#107
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Outplayz
But revelation is also reasoning/imagination... but i would argue with some added endorphins and other chemicals that make you feel the rush of it.


Revelation is not a feeling. In fact, strong feels tend to accompany delusion.

Topic's author
#108
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
oh I dunno, is adaptation random or planned?  if it's planned or directed it must be done by an intelligent designer aka God,  it's just another world building game, but we are the game.
#109
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
oh I dunno, is adaptation random or planned?
<br>
Mutation is random. This happens at sub-cellular level (most people think "Missing link" or "x men", this is entirely wrong) over thousands and thousands of years. Adaptation is not random at all, but it's not planned, it's similar to when the edges get worn off a rock in a stream. It's a response. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but there's a lot of really interesting books on the subject. We can shape species artificially through artificial selection (See: almost every breed of dog), but true evolution happens with no apparent hand at the wheel. 
Topic's author
#110
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
sorry I meant the stimuli or event that causes the adaptation

We can shape species artificially through artificial selection
yes we can design them like that .....intelligently :)

true evolution happens with no apparent hand at the wheel. 
saw I guy interviewing some atheist scientist asking them for one example of evolution, they couldn't come up with one, just adaptation.  Do you have an example of evolution that isn't just adaptation?

#111
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Guys, God is indeed a conscious Entity and the very nature of consciousness desires to express itself in some form, any living Being or sentient Entity is not devoid of that simple truth even if it is God. Yes, God is surely a greater reality than human states of awareness but why this forced assumption that we are sooooo much different, or that God is sooooo far removed from anything we could imagine like us? we, as individual expressions of the Creator are just tiny versions of Itself. Inferior, limited, smaller, ignorant but not all that different from the core of our souls (nature of consciousness). God has made you basically out of Itself, in other words you are made of what God is made of only on a much smaller scale.

A good thing to remember is that God exists in a state of conscious awareness alone, so when you look at creation you're looking at what God wanted or desired. To say that is not the case would be to deny reality. The question of the OP was "what does God do for fun" and that may be a strange way to word it but I take is as the same as asking "what does God WANT to do"? seeing as God exists in an alone state it's a no-brainer what God would certainly want to do. And that would be to create many different types of experiences of all kinds in this world and the many worlds beyond this one. The investment God has in all of this is that God can experience everything you do, like it or not....if God is Omnipresent this is true any way you look at because there is nowhere something exists or where something is happening where God is not present.

Just because God has the title of God, that doesn't negate God of desires, wants or a need to express Itself, then you take away the very nature of even God as a sentient Being and assume God is just a thing or some non-conscious inanimate force that has no personality or feelings. I mean come on this is easy stuff here. The genius behind all of this creation is that God has access to every single channel of awareness, and this is what any Being would want to do if it exists alone, eternally.

#112
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5

When you're talking about God and creation you're looking at two distinct things that exist together simultaneously, you're looking at one.....the full state of consciousness of God that pervades every single thing and is Omnipresent, then two... you have forms in creation and there you have very limited states of conscious awareness that exist within the full state of awareness of the Creator. If you look at it like energy, you find the very same thing with the same attributes. Energy exists both within form and independent of forms, God is the very same way and exists both within form and independent of forms. In other words just like energy, God can't be outside of something! to pervade all of creation means to exist through all things.

So to believe that creation is somehow different or distinct from God is not seeing the whole picture, it only appears that way. But would anyone here argue that God exists through all things and pervades all of creation?? I doubt it, that's a basic Theistic premise that has been articulated in just about every religion including Christianity, and if you say otherwise that means God is no longer Omnipresent and that something exists outside of God.

And the point behind me saying this is to say when you look at creation it's what God wanted to do, and does....whether or not that translates into "fun" it certainly doesn't exclude it. 
#113
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
The question of the OP was "what does God do for fun" and that may be a strange way to word it but I take is as the same as asking "what does God WANT to do"?

I think that is a pretty good way of looking at it.

And you are right, God is a creator! The Creator even.

Why? We could probably come up with many reasons, but when it comes down to it, this is what we can see, and that is just the way it is.

How can you say you love God when you don't love what he has created?

Good stuff.


#114
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
to believe that creation is somehow different or distinct from God is not seeing the whole picture, it only appears that way. But would anyone here argue that God exists through all things and pervades all of creation?? I doubt it, that's a basic Theistic premise that has been articulated in just about every religion including Christianity, and if you say otherwise that means God is no longer Omnipresent and that something exists outside of God.




The Uncreated and Created are definitely distinct physis or natures.


But they are united and made One through the divine hypostasis of The Son. The two physis being united without separation, without mixture, without confusion and without alteration.




That is how we Orthodox understand it.

#115
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The answer is probably not, because evolution is just the culmination of adaptations over an immense amount of generations and time. 
Topic's author
#116
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm about to the limit of my understanding which isn't very much anyway.  But the way I hear evolution and adaptation described as 2 different things but the examples I have read so far are just adaptation.  If it's just adaptation then what is evolution?
I'll try to search some more.
#117
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There isn't any real difference between the two, that might be the stumbling block. I would definitely suggest reading about it, it's fascinating. 
Topic's author
#118
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Evolution myths: Everything is an adaptation

this is the way I look at it



#119
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
sure I would see them as the same basic idea I think.
So is a god idea depending on how you define god. The way i define god, as a platform, is basically the same as a simulation argument... i think less so ID but also i guess that depends on definitions. My definition could not be needed... if a simulation argument is just a paradox with no beginning, but that is a problem with it. Who were the first ones? And, where did they come from? Therefore, if god is an infinite platform that has always existed, then that would answer their source. I think a platform where everything originates fits ID too... but, i'm not sure. To me, ID sounds like either one god or many beings create things... which also falls into the trap of where they came from. But if life and everything in-between has always existed within a platform that is both conscious, not conscious, everything and nothing... then, other platforms make sense... and questions like purpose or fun go out the window since the source platform will not have any attachments... it would be completely free of anything and would be absolutely relative. At least at this point, some kind of platform like that makes most sense to me... and, a simulation argument seems like a plausible implication of such a platform. 

#120
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
Revelation is not a feeling. In fact, strong feels tend to accompany delusion.
How would you define revelation (or how should i be construing it)?