by Terry 17 Replies latest jw friends
Very interesting, I wish we could *realllly* know. But, with all those options, and no camera replay recordings, I don't see us having a chance.
I do wish that I had AI when I was a teenager, in the 70's. I could have used some logical, investigative reasoning. 😉
Thanks for this great post Terry. I'm going to bookmark this post as it is obvious to me that I'll need much more time to thing about it then what I have this morning, but very, very interesting.
... God created everything outside of himself as a NATURAL first step. Meaning, it wasn't out of desperation. More precisely, as we've come to read over and over in the scriptures, he wills all things into existence out of love.
Love as a motive, doesn't seem to be obvious in a universe defined, formed and maintained by catastrophe and consumption. The scriptures, you elude to describe the human tendency to anthropomorphize. We give water and food to those we love, so it isn't surprising that some projected this upon a creator. In a similar anthropomorphic way, the same writer often assumed terrors and slaughter on those this creator didn't favor. If you really think about it, since only a 'few' are described as being so favored, the motivation for such a creator might be philosophically argued to have been a schadenfreude type pleasure in the suffering of others.
However, the writers of the Bible were not united in any particular perspective. Many assumed a predestination of fates. Some fated to suffer and be destroyed, some to suffer a 'little' but then be set free from this world. All 'creation' is said to be 'groaning and waiting' for some remedy to the catastrophe and consumption. IOW, the creation, as it existed, didn't reflect love but only aspects of it, and the promise of escaping it.
As I read the Bible, I see authors trying to make sense of what was all around them. Suffering, deprivation, random injustice and death and yet sufficient resources for the world to continue on.
I had a chipmunk who lives in my woodpile 'trained' to be fed by hand. It brought me and the chipmunk much pleasure. A few nights ago, we heard horrible squealing as the hawk tore his flesh. I imagine that brought the hawk much pleasure. Me and the chipmunk not so much. How do I make theological sense of that.
Pete,
Love as a motive, doesn't seem to be obvious in a universe defined, formed and maintained by catastrophe and consumption. The scriptures, you elude to describe the human tendency to anthropomorphize.
I would say you anthropomorphized that poor chipmunk in your example hehehe. I see what you are saying here tho.
Terry, however, was referring to the why God proceeded to create the first thing outside of himself, before anything happening afterwards. I said love was the motivation vs desperation, which would reflect a state of lacking and powerlessness, which is more human than a limitless, overabundant God.
If God exists in a state of fullness and abundance, then why the desire to create? If God has everything in himself already, naturally more love would spring forth. It wouldn't even require him to think it.
The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy is the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.
In other words, if I were dead, would the Universe still exist or is it entirely a creation of MY mind?
My current hypothesis is this: IF God exists, we then may well be all in His imagination.
I believe that there is a very good chance that this is correct. It lines up well with the more abstract ideas in the Bible. And it lines up almost completely with the 'other side's' interpretation of reality (as symbolized by the snake), where it's taught that all things are one, and that this one thing is purely mental.
I go one step further: His mental preoccupation with "the Universe and mankind" is what keeps Him 'sane.'
Here I will disagree again. It's difficult to imply that otherwise God would be IN-sane were it not for his thoughts of mankind. I don't believe God was mad or in a state of mental desperation prior to having any thoughts.
And one more item on the list! All the damage done throughout the history of our world "Does Not Count" against God because He is merely an author thinking up a plot in which heroes die and sometimes Bad Guys flourish.
It's clear that if man wanted, the world would be a much better place. Hate, greed, selfishness, etc all make it incredibly challenging for a huge part of the world to live in peace. It's easier to blame God for lightening or a shark striking an innocent person. Less so when dealing with the emotions of hate or greed.
When tasked with solving a jewelry store robbery, the district attorney doesn't hypothesize goblins and time machines. Rather, they pragmatically check surveillance cameras, collect physical evidence and do profiling using the details of the case.
Why is it when discussing a Jewish creation story, taking a sober look at the culture and politics of the Jewish people at the time of writing is neglected in favor of time paradox speculation and invisible entities?
Pete -Why is it when discussing a Jewish creation story, taking a sober look at the culture and politics of the Jewish people at the time of writing is neglected in favor of time paradox speculation and invisible entities?
The concept of gods was not an invention by the Jewish people. The very claim that the book of Genesis was written closer to 1BC than not should clarify that the concept of an all powerful god was not a Jewish innovation.
When tasked with solving a jewelry store robbery, the district attorney doesn't hypothesize goblins and time machines. Rather, they pragmatically check surveillance cameras, collect physical evidence and do profiling using the details of the case.
This is logical of course.
It is also logical that the entire universe had to start from something. What was that 'something' before the big bang as Terry asked at the beginning? And how about the thing before that? Where is the evidence for these things?
If there is none, then you could claim we arrived from nothing. But this isn't very logical at all.
