What if I were God?

[ateista]

Pretty presumptuous to assume, but it was asked from me, so I will take the plunge and give it my honest answer. (Well, as “honest” as an “evil” atheist can.)

Now, let us presume that you are the God.

Starting point: we assume a few things about God. One is that God is perfect and self-sufficient (in other words: God needs nothing). The other is that God is a rational being, so whatever he does, has a good reason to do it. (We do not assume to be able to understand the reason, only that there must be one.)

If I were that being, I would do or create nothing.

What can an already perfect and self-sufficient being “gain” from any activity? He cannot “improve” on perfection - though he can decrease it.

He could create other beings, but what would be the reason? He cannot create a “superior” being, that goes against the concept that God is supreme. Maybe he could not even create equal beings - since then he would be “primus inter pares”.

But, of course, he could create inferior beings. What would be a reason to do that? Why create “pets”? I cannot think of any reason, but the usual assumption is that God wanted to share his love with them.

Now, that puts God’s self-sufficiency and rationality into a dubious light. Either God needs someone else to share his love with, or does not. If he needs it - he is not self-sufficient. If he does not need it, but “wants to do it”, he is not rational. One does not do anything for no reason whatsoever. To say that God does not “need” it, but “wants it” is semanticism. God lacked at least one thing: “others to share his love with”.

Now, let’s examine this hypothesis. God wanted to have other, inferior beings to share his love with. What would a rational being do in such a case?

Well, go ahead and do it. Create those beings directly in heaven, and share his love with them. Isn’t that rational? You want something, you can do it in a simple, straightforward manner - and then you do it.

What did God instead? Create this huge universe, populate one insignificant planet with some beings. Then he set up a course of action, which could go wrong and which indeed went wrong. Then he became angry and cursed his creation. Then he wiped out most of his experiment (not all of it) and allowed the same design to continue. No improvement introduced, just SSDD. Then he set up himself as a sacrificial lamb to protect some of his his creation - from himself.

How irrational this God can be? To go to such a roundabout way to “risk” that some of his creation will never get the love he wants them to have… for what? What was gained by this “detour”?

To paraphrase the old Calvin and Hobbs cartoon, in which Hobbs said: “The surest sign that there is intelligent life in the Universe is that they never tried to contact us”, I will say:

“The surest sign that there is no God is that the Universe exists”.

 

[srferdave]

It is not possible to completely understand the reasons behind why God does things. If it were then we would be equal to God. The best we can do is to understand what God gave us.

 

[dmar198]

Pretty presumptuous to assume, but it was asked from me, so I will take the plunge and give it my honest answer. (Well, as “honest” as an “evil” atheist can.)

Starting point: we assume a few things about God. One is that God is perfect and self-sufficient (in other words: God needs nothing). The other is that God is a rational being, so whatever he does, has a good reason to do it. (We do not assume to be able to understand the reason, only that there must be one.)

If I were that being, I would do or create nothing.

What can an already perfect and self-sufficient being “gain” from any activity? He cannot “improve” on perfection - though he can decrease it.

He could create other beings, but what would be the reason? He cannot create a “superior” being, that goes against the concept that God is supreme. Maybe he could not even create equal beings - since then he would be “primus inter pares”.

But, of course, he could create inferior beings. What would be a reason to do that? Why create “pets”? I cannot think of any reason, but the usual assumption is that God wanted to share his love with them.

Now, that puts God’s self-sufficiency and rationality into a dubious light. Either God needs someone else to share his love with, or does not. If he needs it - he is not self-sufficient. If he does not need it, but “wants to do it”, he is not rational. One does not do anything for no reason whatsoever. To say that God does not “need” it, but “wants it” is semanticism. God lacked at least one thing: “others to share his love with”.

Now, let’s examine this hypothesis. God wanted to have other, inferior beings to share his love with. What would a rational being do in such a case?

Well, go ahead and do it. Create those beings directly in heaven, and share his love with them. Isn’t that rational? You want something, you can do it in a simple, straightforward manner - and then you do it.

What did God instead? Create this huge universe, populate one insignificant planet with some beings. Then he set up a course of action, which could go wrong and which indeed went wrong. Then he became angry and cursed his creation. Then he wiped out most of his experiment (not all of it) and allowed the same design to continue. No improvement introduced, just SSDD. Then he set up himself as a sacrificial lamb to protect some of his his creation - from himself.

How irrational this God can be? To go to such a roundabout way to “risk” that some of his creation will never get the love he wants them to have… for what? What was gained by this “detour”?

To paraphrase the old Calvin and Hobbs cartoon, in which Hobbs said: “The surest sign that there is intelligent life in the Universe is that they never tried to contact us”, I will say:

“The surest sign that there is no God is that the Universe exists”.

First, you seem to misunderstand God’s self-sufficiency. The nature of our god is loving, and love is both unitive and procreative – according to His revelation of Himself.

So in creating external beings, He would simply be acting out His nature. Would it be accurate to say that He “needed” to act out His nature? Possibly, but it would be unusual. People do not “need” to be the way they are; they simply are that way. God does not “need” to be a loving Being; He simply “is” because that is the nature of His existence.

Now you say that He rationally would have “Create[d] those beings directly in heaven”. Did He not do that? Are angels not such beings precisely? But again, to cease His loving activity at that point is not consistent with His loving nature. And so He created a second order of creation; namely, the world. And did He stop there? We cannot know, but in order to be consistent I say He must have – and Scripture does tell us that He is the Creator of the “worlds”; plural, not just this universe, but others as well.

You say it is not rational to create a world in which His creatures rejected Him, then to save them from Himself. That is a misunderstanding. He does not save us from Him, but He saves us from ourselves – specifically, our rejection of Him which consummates in that eternal rejection we call Hell. Thus Hell is a product of Man’s rejection of God, not of God’s rejection of Man, for God does not desire any to be destroyed.

But the question, Why create such a world? Does not Scripture say that God’s love is proved in His dying for us? So again, that God should give Himself for us is a demonstration of His loving nature – but that is impossible without a fallen world. The angels, too, fell, and our Lord died for them as well. I am sure that, of any other orders of Creation, we can say the same thing.

Hope that helps.

 

[als10062008]

Perhaps the best that can be said to them are the words that introduce the film Song of Bernadette: “For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”

 

[murphdog261]

Now, that puts God’s self-sufficiency and rationality into a dubious light. Either God needs someone else to share his love with, or does not. If he needs it - he is not self-sufficient. If he does not need it, but “wants to do it”, he is not rational. One does not do anything for no reason whatsoever. To say that God does not “need” it, but “wants it” is semanticism.** God lacked at least one thing: “others to share his love with”.**

If you are said to be a Christian God, that is, three divine persons in one divine essence, then you do not even need to create others to share your love with, since you are already sharing your love eternally within the three eternal persons.

It seems pretty odd, at least to us, for God to reveal Himself so indirectly. The fact that God wants us to participate with Him brings in such a high possibility of error on our part.

But, as far as my mind can see anyway, the best way to demonstrate love isn’t always in the most direct sense, but by choosing a method that allows the other party to cooperate in that love - the same way that a parent will not just do something to their child, but will allow the child to grow and imitate the parent, so the child could be more like the parent.

Even if the parent had the choice to raise his child instantly, without the child facing any troubles or hardships, I still think the parent would want the child to grow up and love the parent because the child willed to respond back to the parent’s love - not because the parent forced the loving relationship on the child.

Even while the parent might see all this clearly, the child does not acknowledge, at least in the same way that the parent does, the complete reasoning behind the co-operational love that is set before the child.

That’s at least how I usually look at it.

 

[BlaineTog]

Love is a good enough reason. Don’t you know your scripture?

“All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.”

The Gospel According to Lennon, 14:6:67.

 

[geekborj]

Starting point: we assume a few things about God. One is that God is perfect and self-sufficient (in other words: God needs nothing). The other is that God is a rational being, so whatever he does, has a good reason to do it. (We do not assume to be able to understand the reason, only that there must be one.)

If I were that being, I would do or create nothing.

This would violate your being GOOD. If you are good, you want to share it with other inferior beings.

What can an already perfect and self-sufficient being “gain” from any activity? He cannot “improve” on perfection - though he can decrease it.

Indeed, but will violate the idea that this God is perfectly good.

He could create other beings, but what would be the reason? He cannot create a “superior” being, that goes against the concept that God is supreme. Maybe he could not even create equal beings - since then he would be “primus inter pares”.

But, of course, he could create inferior beings. What would be a reason to do that? Why create “pets”? I cannot think of any reason, but the usual assumption is that God wanted to share his love with them.

Now, that puts God’s self-sufficiency and rationality into a dubious light. Either God needs someone else to share his love with, or does not. If he needs it - he is not self-sufficient. If he does not need it, but “wants to do it”, he is not rational. One does not do anything for no reason whatsoever. To say that God does not “need” it, but “wants it” is semanticism. God lacked at least one thing: “others to share his love with”.

Misunderstanding of the concept of LOVE that God has.

Now, let’s examine this hypothesis. God wanted to have other, inferior beings to share his love with. What would a rational being do in such a case?

Read: “do out of LOVE.”

Well, go ahead and do it. Create those beings directly in heaven, and share his love with them. Isn’t that rational? You want something, you can do it in a simple, straightforward manner - and then you do it.

Do it in a “simple” and “straightforward” way? This would violate that you are have infinite Wisdom. A very good artist would definitely not create a lousy looking masterpiece! A good cook would definitely not create a bland and un-tasty meal.

What did God instead? Create this huge universe, populate one insignificant planet with some beings. Then he set up a course of action, which could go wrong and which indeed went wrong. Then he became angry and cursed his creation. Then he wiped out most of his experiment (not all of it) and allowed the same design to continue. No improvement introduced, just SSDD. Then he set up himself as a sacrificial lamb to protect some of his his creation - from himself.

How irrational this God can be? To go to such a roundabout way to “risk” that some of his creation will never get the love he wants them to have… for what? What was gained by this “detour”?

Unless you offer your rational role if you were God, i cannot accept your judgements about “irrationality” of the God we refer to.

To paraphrase the old Calvin and Hobbs cartoon, in which Hobbs said: “The surest sign that there is intelligent life in the Universe is that they never tried to contact us”, I will say:

“The surest sign that there is no God is that the Universe exists”.

“never tried to contact” is not in parallel with “the Universe exists”. You just seems to have stated an argument against your Thesis:

"intelligent life" therefore “contact”; so thus,
“God” therefore "Universe."

There’s a good parallelism.

Please try again and attempt what would you do if you were God.

 

[ateista]

This would violate your being GOOD. If you are good, you want to share it with other inferior beings.

No, I most definitely don’t want to. I don’t even want to have inferior beings. I don’t have “pets” and I don’t want pets. Equals, maybe… but then I would not be self-sufficient, would I?

Besides, I did not include “good”, just as I did not include “omipotence”, “immaterial”, “incomprehensible” and other alleged attributes. They are not relevant in this discussion.

I simply picked two things: “perfectly self-sufficient” and “rational”. A perfectly self-sufficient being does not need anything. That is what “perfectly self-sufficient” means.

Misunderstanding of the concept of LOVE that God has.

Come on. This is not my concoction. It was repeated all over this board, ad nauseam. If you want to pick a fight, do it with those who assert it. Why shoot the messanger?

Read: “do out of LOVE.”

You can’t love someone or something that does not exist. Impossible.

Do it in a “simple” and “straightforward” way? This would violate that you are have infinite Wisdom.

On the very contrary. It would be the sign of wisdom. Do precisely what you want without detours. And if, at the same time, you could bring infinite “joy” to others, that would be the icing on the cake.

A very good artist would definitely not create a lousy looking masterpiece! A good cook would definitely not create a bland and un-tasty meal.

Agreed. But if you see it so clearly, why do you fight against the same approach when it comes to the problem at hand? Obviously a good designer would never create anything that falls short of the expectations. Same principle.

The believers’ assertion (not mine!) is that God wants to share his infinite love and give infinite joy to other beings. Then why not do it?

Unless you offer your rational role if you were God, i cannot accept your judgements about “irrationality” of the God we refer to.

In that case you could present arguments why is it a rational behavior NOT to do what you wish to do. Why is a detour preferable to the direct route? I am most curious.

 

[BlaineTog]

No, I most definitely don’t want to. I don’t even want to have inferior beings. I don’t have “pets” and I don’t want pets.

Really? I like cats. They are inferior, but I still want them to exist.

Equals, maybe… but then I would not be self-sufficient, would I?

It’s not possible for God to make true equals, but it is possible for him to raise free beings to qualitative similarity.

I simply picked two things: “perfectly self-sufficient” and “rational”. A perfectly self-sufficient being does not need anything. That is what “perfectly self-sufficient” means.

That definition of God has no reason to do anything, this is true. But Christians posit that God is Good and Loving in addition to those, and from them flows existence.

Obviously a good designer would never create anything that falls short of the expectations.

A good designer would never create anything that he wants to fail, but it may fail anyway. Same thing here. God may be omnipotent, but he still can’t do the impossible, and it is impossible to create a race of godlings who are at the same time free and unfree to choose him. It is a blatant contradiction.

The believers’ assertion (not mine!) is that God wants to share his infinite love and give infinite joy to other beings. Then why not do it?

He does. He is trying to. We refuse to let him most of the time.

In that case you could present arguments why is it a rational behavior NOT to do what you wish to do. Why is a detour preferable to the direct route? I am most curious.

Because it is the only possible route. The direct course does not exist, cannot exist, and is in fact a logical absurdity.

 

[ateista]

But, as far as my mind can see anyway, the best way to demonstrate love isn’t always in the most direct sense, but by choosing a method that allows the other party to cooperate in that love - the same way that a parent will not just do something to their child, but will allow the child to grow and imitate the parent, so the child could be more like the parent.

Even if the parent had the choice to raise his child instantly, without the child facing any troubles or hardships, I still think the parent would want the child to grow up and love the parent because the child willed to respond back to the parent’s love - not because the parent forced the loving relationship on the child.

Even while the parent might see all this clearly, the child does not acknowledge, at least in the same way that the parent does, the complete reasoning behind the co-operational love that is set before the child.

That’s at least how I usually look at it.

There are a few problems with your approach, at least as I see it. The parent - child analogy should not really be used, because God and we are not the same species, we can never “grow” into God.

Second, a good parent does “something” to earn the child’s love. That is what is sorely missing. God is much more like a parent which delivers the child and leaves out on the street to fend for himself as he can. No help in this world. You probably believe that “promising” some good stuff in some afterlife is sufficient. But that is not how a good human parent behaves. He does not leave the child alone and “promises” a graduation present.

 

[ateista]

Really? I like cats. They are inferior, but I still want them to exist.

Well, what can I say? Each 'is own. I don’t like them. They kill about a 100 million songbirds in the US alone - every year - and that is a conservative estimate. But irrelevancies aside, cats are not your “peers”, they are just pets (or pests). Do you think that we are “pets” to God?

It’s not possible for God to make true equals, but it is possible for him to raise free beings to qualitative similarity.

Not “raise”, create outright. Big difference.

That definition of God has no reason to do anything, this is true. But Christians posit that God is Good and Loving in addition to those, and from them flows existence.

Good and love does not make a roundabout way necessary. Actually they make the direct way mandatory.

A good designer would never create anything that he wants to fail, but it may fail anyway. Same thing here.

Not the same thing at all. Only an inferior designer can create things that can fail.

God may be omnipotent, but he still can’t do the impossible, and it is impossible to create a race of godlings who are at the same time free and unfree to choose him. It is a blatant contradiction.

Actually it is not a contradiction, because you posited the problem incorrectly. They can be free to choose him, and free to reject him. From this possibility of choice it simply does NOT follow that anyone will reject him. Possibility does not equal actuality.

Because it is the only possible route. The direct course does not exist, cannot exist, and is in fact a logical absurdity.

Why is it a logical absurdity? There is no need for this prepraratory “stage” at all. God could have created everyone directly in heaven.

 

[BlaineTog]

Well, what can I say? Each 'is own. I don’t like them. They kill about a 100 million songbirds in the US alone - every year - and that is a conservative estimate.

So I like cats and you like songbirds (I assume). Same difference.

*But irrelevancies aside, cats are not your “peers”, they are just pets (or pests). Do you think that we are “pets” to God? *

Not at all. I was simply pointing out that humans are not the only things in existence and that a world without pets as one of those things that exists would be an inferior world.

Not “raise”, create outright. Big difference.

Not possible. A godling must freely choose to be exalted to godhood, necessarily. Hence the world as it is: we are being created, and God allows us to choose how.

Good and love does not make a roundabout way necessary. Actually they make the direct way mandatory.

Not if this “direct way” is impossible, which it is. “A creature which freely choses to be exalted” cannot be created exalted, since then it would not have the choice of being created exalted or not.

Not the same thing at all. Only an inferior designer can create things that can fail.

Unless the ability to fail is part of the design plan. Humans are not Rube Goldberg machines, nor mere animals, nor paper cutters. Our actions are not predetermined for us.

Actually it is not a contradiction, because you posited the problem incorrectly. They can be free to choose him, and free to reject him. From this possibility of choice it simply does NOT follow that anyone will reject him. Possibility does not equal actuality.

Murphy would disagree with you. Less flippantly, though, if the system has been arranged such that it is literally impossible for anyone in it to decide to freely choose to reject God, then their choices are de facto determined for them.

It would not be particularly difficult to imagine a person who had no inclination to sin. In a fallen world, it is difficult to imagine that person not running into temptation, but let’s assume it’s an unfallen world. But that is one person. God doesn’t want a bunch of clones; why create more than one of a single person? We are each created differently, and the number of possible configurations of personality that could possibly live sinless lives is finite.

Why is it a logical absurdity? There is no need for this prepraratory “stage” at all. God could have created everyone directly in heaven.

God could have created everyone in perpetual bliss, this is true. In fact, he did: they are called the angels. That was a different part of creation (though even some of the angels chose to reject God). Humans have a higher destiny, one that requires creation over time.

 

[ateista]

So I like cats and you like songbirds (I assume). Same difference.

True. Of course cats are just hunters, and songbirds eat a lot of worms, thus keeping the environment healthier.

Not at all. I was simply pointing out that humans are not the only things in existence and that a world without pets as one of those things that exists would be an inferior world.

Well, inferior is a subjective term. Even though I do not happen to like cats, they are ok… in a sense. The felines are the best predators on land, like the sharks in the sea. A world without rats, disease-bearing animals, viruses, etc… would be far superior - at least in my eyes.

Not possible. A godling must freely choose to be exalted to godhood, necessarily. Hence the world as it is: we are being created, and God allows us to choose how.

This seems to be in contradiction with the reply you give at the end of your post.

Not if this “direct way” is impossible, which it is. “A creature which freely choses to be exalted” cannot be created exalted, since then it would not have the choice of being created exalted or not.

So? I bet everyone would choose to be “exalted” if given a choice before being created. (Whatever “exalted” means.)

Unless the ability to fail is part of the design plan. Humans are not Rube Goldberg machines, nor mere animals, nor paper cutters. Our actions are not predetermined for us.

The point is that they should be. In my “creation” there would be extremely small freedom (if any). Certainly the ability to choose something I disapprove of would be either physically or psychologically impossible. Of course it is true in our world, too - at least to a certain extent. No matter how much anyone would love to choose to exterminate everyone else, it is physically impossible - and that bears no significance on their freedom to wish it.

Murphy would disagree with you. Less flippantly, though, if the system has been arranged such that it is literally impossible for anyone in it to decide to freely choose to reject God, then their choices are de facto determined for them.

You misunderstand. They could choose to reject God. From this fact it does not follow that they would be - Murphy’s law notwithstanding.

By the way, what is the problem if someone “rejects” God? Why does God care? As long as they live a happy, prosperous, happy, decent life, I would not care if they “accepted” or “rejected” me… I probably have many faults, but vanity is not one of them.

It would not be particularly difficult to imagine a person who had no inclination to sin.

Now you speak my language! I am glad.

In a fallen world, it is difficult to imagine that person not running into temptation, but let’s assume it’s an unfallen world.But that is one person. God doesn’t want a bunch of clones; why create more than one of a single person? We are each created differently, and the number of possible configurations of personality that could possibly live sinless lives is finite.

Finite still does not equal the assurance that anyone would fail. And what is wrong with similaly “well-inclined” persons? You argument presupposes that one person cannot be “really free” unless someone else fails, and that is absurd.

God could have created everyone in perpetual bliss, this is true. In fact, he did: they are called the angels.

You speak my language again. Excellent!

That was a different part of creation (though even some of the angels chose to reject God). Humans have a higher destiny, one that requires creation over time.

Higher destiny? I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[homeloan]

If I were God and I created this “world” exactly as it now exists, with humans at the top of the food chain, whom I would have created in my (God’s) image (I guess anatomically?), I would go sit under the Tree of Knowledge and have a little self-talk.

Then, I would try to answer the question I would have posed to my self. Borrowing from the Dirks Bentley song title, the question would be, “What Was I Thinking?”

 

[BlaineTog]

This seems to be in contradiction with the reply you give at the end of your post.

Howso?

So? I bet everyone would choose to be “exalted” if given a choice before being created. (Whatever “exalted” means.)

Impossible. You can’t choose before being created since you don’t exist before being created.

Plus, there is virtue in the struggle. (This is an additional argument, by the way, lest you think I’m trying a bait-and-switch) Choosing heaven despite a struggle is better than just choosing heaven.

The point is that they should be.

They should not be, nor can they be. It is logically impossible for us to freely unfreely choose God, and to speak of it is pure nonsense. God wants to turn us into gods, but this is only possible if the human freely choses it; anything less than a free choice would render the human not god-like and therefore would restrict him or her from becoming a god.

The point of life is not simply bliss. What you propose is that God create brains sitting in vats getting their pleasure centers constantly stoked. While the brains would be happy, they wouldn’t be great. The sin of Adam was to risk happiness for the chance at greatness, which God does not will because of the immense pain involved. But he allowed it, because he loves man as a son, a friend, a wife, and if you love someone, you will let them go, and he will in the end make something greater than what was originally lain out for them.

If all you want is bliss, we have a fundamental disconnect.

You misunderstand. They could choose to reject God. From this fact it does not follow that they would be - Murphy’s law notwithstanding.But it does follow, in the same way that a statistic possibility will eventually happen through the course of history.

By the way, what is the problem if someone “rejects” God? Why does God care? As long as they live a happy, prosperous, happy, decent life, I would not care if they “accepted” or “rejected” me…

What you propose betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God: he doesn’t just give bliss, he is bliss. Every moment of happiness you have is thanks to God. If you reject him, you reject happiness. It’s different in human relationships; if your loved one rejects you, they can still find happiness, because you are not happiness itself and there may well be someone better for them out there. God is the best for us, and apart from him there is no happiness.

Now you speak my language! I am glad.

You misunderstand. I said “a” person. As in, there might be a single instance of a person who was in perfect harmony with God’s will. That person was Mary. Every person cannot be Mary.

Finite still does not equal the assurance that anyone would fail. And what is wrong with similaly “well-inclined” persons? You argument presupposes that one person cannot be “really free” unless someone else fails, and that is absurd.

Let’s say each person is an integral on a number line. So you have -27843, -87, -1, 0, 1, 34, 62, 823482347432, and so on. These numbers sum up the whole of a person; if you were any different, you would be a different number. The person who would live a completelly sin-free is exactly 0, no more, no less. There can only be one such person, because God never repeats himself; there would be no point in creating a second 0 since a 0 already exists. If you wanted brains in a jar, then sure, there is no problem with making a bunch that are the same. But God wants to fill the spectrum.

You speak my language again. Excellent!

And yet you still go out of your way to misunderstand me.

Angels are not humans. They are vastly different and they have a vastly different role to play in creation. They were created to sing God’s praises in bliss and to help God in smelting gods (us). Praise from a tape recorder is meaningless, so God gave angels free will, though theirs works differently from ours (they make the choice once and eternally, whereas we humans can change our minds between shades of gray).

Higher destiny? I have no idea what you are talking about.

I speak of godhood, of becoming “higher than the angels.” But to do that, it is necessary to risk becoming “lower than the demons.”

 

[ateista]

If I were God and I created this “world” exactly as it now exists, with humans at the top of the food chain, whom I would have created in my (God’s) image (I guess anatomically?), I would go sit under the Tree of Knowledge and have a little self-talk.

Then, I would try to answer the question I would have posed to my self. Borrowing from the Dirks Bentley song title, the question would be, “What Was I Thinking?”

Well said!!! :extrahappy:

 

[ateista]

Howso?

Sorry, I was not clear. Here are the two sentences I found incompatible:

Not possible. A godling must freely choose to be exalted to godhood, necessarily. Hence the world as it is: we are being created, and God allows us to choose how.

God could have created everyone in perpetual bliss, this is true.

Is it clear now?

Impossible. You can’t choose before being created since you don’t exist before being created.

Very true.

Now carry it one step further: “you cannot do anything for someone, who does not exist”. You cannot ask them, if they wanted to exist, you cannot do anything with them or cannot do anything for them. You cannot even “create” them. It is nonsensical to say that one creates “John Q. Doe” - because “John Q. Doe” does not exist before he is created.

Plus, there is virtue in the struggle. (This is an additional argument, by the way, lest you think I’m trying a bait-and-switch) Choosing heaven despite a struggle is better than just choosing heaven.

That is old-fashioned rationalization, and I don’t accept it. If one must take time and energy to acquire something, because it is not freely available then this time and effort will be “subtracted” and cannot be used to achieve something else.

They should not be, nor can they be. It is logically impossible for us to freely unfreely choose God, and to speak of it is pure nonsense.

You misquote me again. I said that it is possible to freely accept or reject God.

God wants to turn us into gods, but this is only possible if the human freely choses it; anything less than a free choice would render the human not god-like and therefore would restrict him or her from becoming a god.

You mentioned this in the other thread. It contradicts to the concept that there can only be one God. There is also a logical error in it. God did not freely choose to be God, so a choice is not necessary.

The point of life is not simply bliss. What you propose is that God create brains sitting in vats getting their pleasure centers constantly stoked. While the brains would be happy, they wouldn’t be great.

How do you know that? And isn’t that exactly what heaven is supposed to be? Constant bliss?

But it does follow, in the same way that a statistic possibility will eventually happen through the course of history.

Come on. God is now curtailed by statistics? It may be very unlikely, but not impossible to have every created being freely choose God.

And God is supposed to be unable to create a logical contradiction, but not a statistically improbable event.

What you propose betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God: he doesn’t just give bliss, he is bliss. Every moment of happiness you have is thanks to God.

Well, that does not look correct. God plays absolutely no role in my life, and I am a very happy person.

You misunderstand. I said “a” person. As in, there might be a single instance of a person who was in perfect harmony with God’s will. That person was Mary. Every person cannot be Mary.

Sure can. There could be differences, of course, subtle ones, big ones.

But you cannot say that it is possible for one person to freely choose God, and that free choice will automatically disable everyone else from doing the same thing. That simply makes no sense. It would create a “collective” free will, where Mary had “first dibs” and this choice deprives us from having a free choice.

 

[murphdog261]

Well, that does not look correct. God plays absolutely no role in my life, and I am a **very **happy person

Even if you do not recognize it, or don’t want to recognize it, God plays a much bigger role in your life than you will ever know.

As for the child analogy used earlier, the only reason it breaks down is because it is an analogy. No parent could ever measure up to how immanent God is in our lives. God participates with us every day, whether we recognize it or not.

If you desire to find God He will reveal Himself to you.

 

[ateista]

Even if you do not recognize it, or don’t want to recognize it, God plays a much bigger role in your life than you will ever know.

So you call me “delusional”? Just kidding!

If you desire to find God He will reveal Himself to you.

I do not “desire”, but I stay open to the possibility. That is all I can say.

 

[murphdog261]

So you call me “delusional”? Just kidding!

We are all delusional since we are capable of seeing much more than we let God show us.

I do not “desire”, but I stay open to the possibility. That is all I can say.

That is all you can say because that is all you will to say. Every person is open to the possibility because it is within our capacity to will towards an ultimate end. Even if you do not recognize the desire as much as others. The fact that there is a desire points to an ultimate end to satisfy that desire.