Wwydiywg?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not talking about any kind of specific time: I am talking about the metaphysical concept of change. A change logically involves a difference, and thus involves a “before” and an “after”. A change is not a change if there is no difference. If there is no difference, it would be crazy to talk about a “change”. Again, anyone who denies that is irrational - and that has nothing to do with my screen-name.
  1. A change without a difference is not a change.
  2. A difference without a “before the change” and “after the change” is not a difference.
  3. A “before” and an “after” presumes a time.
And I am not interested in explaining it again. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem from now on.
But Perfect before and Perfect after can still exist even if there was a change.

Think of it like this: You have a family with a mom and dad and four kids. They are happy and living their lives. They feel no lack. They consider their family just perfect or good or complete or anything other concept.

But then they have another child. Now they are mom, dad and five kids. They are still happy and living their lives and still feel no lack. They still consider their family perfect/good/complete.

I don’t think it is wrong to describe both families as “perfect/good/complete” despite the fact a change occurred.
 
But Perfect before and Perfect after can still exist even if there was a change.

Think of it like this: You have a family with a mom and dad and four kids. They are happy and living their lives. They feel no lack. They consider their family just perfect or good or complete or anything other concept.

But then they have another child. Now they are mom, dad and five kids. They are still happy and living their lives and still feel no lack. They still consider their family perfect/good/complete.

I don’t think it is wrong to describe both families as “perfect/good/complete” despite the fact a change occurred.
And what does this have to do with anything?

The assertion was that God exists outside time. And that assertion is incompatible with “actions” and “change”. Obviously not all aspects of existence will be necessarily modified with a change - the family in your example may provide for 5 children just as well as they could provide for four. And maybe the earnings of the family are sufficient for 6 people but are deficient for seven (maybe the last kid is born with serious defects and just to keep it alive would drain the resources of the family, and push them into abject poverty). Sure, MAYBE there will be no significant change, and MAYBE there would be.

But none of these really matters - a change did happen, and that includes that there is a “time”. All the rest is irrelevant “fluff”.
 
And what does this have to do with anything?

The assertion was that God exists outside time. And that assertion is incompatible with “actions” and “change”. Obviously not all aspects of existence will be necessarily modified with a change - the family in your example may provide for 5 children just as well as they could provide for four. And maybe the earnings of the family are sufficient for 6 people but are deficient for seven (maybe the last kid is born with serious defects and just to keep it alive would drain the resources of the family, and push them into abject poverty). Sure, MAYBE there will be no significant change, and MAYBE there would be.

But none of these really matters - a change did happen, and that includes that there is a “time”. All the rest is irrelevant “fluff”.
I was just trying to say time doesn’t matter. Your original post asked if everything was “perfect” why would God change anything.

It is just a different perspective.

Besides God knew it would turn out okay so no harm done! 👍
 
I was just trying to say time doesn’t matter. Your original post asked if everything was “perfect” why would God change anything.
Your example was not “perfection” in every respect, so it was not applicable.
 
What Would You Do If You Were God? This question comes up periodically. Of course the answer is too simple: “NOTHING”. From the pinnacle all roads lead downhill. A perfection cannot be improved upon, no matter what is added to it or taken from it. The only logical thing would be to do nothing.

As such the posited God of Christianty is an illogical and irrational being. Since creating anything will destroy his “lonely perfection”, only an irrational and illogical being would want to do that. And the believers want to “sell” that kind of illogical being as being “perfect”. It does not work.
Why should perfection hate imperfection? Or why should superior hate inferior, unless for pride, which is an illogical, imperfect, disposition? And what defines perfection? If love is a constituent of a beings’ perfection, and I see no reason why it can’t be, then perfection, by its nature, would accommodate the imperfect.
 
Why should perfection hate imperfection? Or why should superior hate inferior, unless for pride, which is an illogical, imperfect, disposition?
Where did you get this “hate”-thing? I certainly never mentioned it or anything like it.
And what defines perfection?
Now this is a “perfectly” good question - for another thread. I am not particularly interested in the details (in this thread), here I simply accommodated the christian / catholic notion that “God is perfect in every respect, that is God needs nothing, no attribute of God can be enhanced or improved”. If you would say that this definition is sheer nonsense, I would agree with you.
If love is a constituent of a beings’ perfection, and I see no reason why it can’t be, then perfection, by its nature, would accommodate the imperfect.
Love is just an emotion. Nice one, but not very relevant.
 
What Would You Do If You Were God? This question comes up periodically. Of course the answer is too simple: “NOTHING”. From the pinnacle all roads lead downhill. A perfection cannot be improved upon, no matter what is added to it or taken from it. The only logical thing would be to do nothing.

As such the posited God of Christianty is an illogical and irrational being. Since creating anything will destroy his “lonely perfection”, only an irrational and illogical being would want to do that. And the believers want to “sell” that kind of illogical being as being “perfect”. It does not work.
Free creatures were created for their own sake.
293 Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: "The world was made for the glory of God."134 St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it”,135 for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: "Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand."136 The First Vatican Council explains:
This one, true God, of his own goodness and “almighty power”, not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures , with absolute freedom of counsel "and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . ."137
356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.** He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake**”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.
 
Love is just an emotion. Nice one, but not very relevant.
You are correct in that love is a feeling of deep affection, however it is also more…
I would like to offer an understanding of Love.
The Holy Bible defines Love as Patience and Kindness.

The only way to Experience Peace is to be Patient.
The only way to Experience Happiness is to be Kind.

What or Who Motivates you to be Patient and Kind will determine How long you can be Energetic.

Perfect Motivation is:
Inexhaustible, Immaterial, Omnipresent, Eternal, and Personal. The only Motivation which fits this description is God!

Thoughts?
 
You are correct in that love is a feeling of deep affection, however it is also more…
I would like to offer an understanding of Love.
The Holy Bible defines Love as Patience and Kindness.
Which are corollaries of the emotion. The rest was just propaganda.
 
Which are corollaries of the emotion. The rest was just propaganda.
To understand you clearly, are you stating the rest of my post was propaganda or the rest of the Holy Bible is propaganda or both?

So I propose the Solution to Absolute Contentment and All Levels of Happiness and Energy is Be Patient and Kind and Motivated for something inexhaustible, immaterial, omnipresent, eternal, and personal.
Can you tell me who first stated and demonstrated and proved these corollaries (whether fictional or not)?
Do you agree that Jesus, without consideration of Non-Fictional value, perfectly demonstrated Patience and Kindness and Motivation during His Crucifixion?
 
Which are corollaries of the emotion. The rest was just propaganda.
What is wrong with propanda?
Definition:
dictionary.com:
propaganda - …information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc…
.
Note bolded point. Your implied point that propaganda = lies is not well informed.
 
Where did you get this “hate”-thing? I certainly never mentioned it or anything like it.
Why should imperfection and perfection be necessarily mutually exclusive? Why would a perfect/superior being have any compelling reason to remain disassociated with lesser/inferior things, things of less value? In our own life experience, do we necessarily do that, should we remain aloof if we’re in the company of someone less strong, less educated, less wealthy, less intelligent, less wise?
Love is just an emotion. Nice one, but not very relevant.
Yes, speculation. Love’s easily enough dismissed, that’s for sure, just like the idea of God, but we minimize it only because we don’t know it-and know its true value. For a human being, we don’t merely do things, there’s a reason to our madness, we assign value, rightly or wrongly, to the things we do. And that value, the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a thing, is really based on our love-or lack of love-for it. This is why a person can say, or think, I love fishing, I love killing people, I love my job-or, alternatively, I hate my job. This sounds too simple, but these are value-based judgment calls, based on our desire or attraction to things we experience as bringing us some level of fulfillment- or lack of it. And I submit that the basis of this “valuing”- the standard for it- is love, that everything we do is driven by it, whether or not in a misguided or perverted way.

In any case, love promises to make life more than just a drudge. Even if seems to be in pretty sparse supply now, if it were to totally disappear from the face of the earth we’d know it immediately and life would be less worth living. And on a deeper and more important level, human love for others can produce heroic and world-changing acts. But on an even deeper level, love can be directly experienced as a reality so powerful, so virtually sensate and concrete, that one can’t stand in its presence, crazy as that sounds. In any case it’s the stuff that makes life worth living, which we as humans generally experience on a relatively mundane level on a day to day basis, and which can be experienced on a much more profound level if we choose to pursue it. Then we no longer view it as something little more than a nice emotion, we begin to see it as the most relevant and worthy thing in the universe. But love’s humble and won’t force itself upon anyone-and the world can easily steam-roll over it in crude fashion, which it does.

IMO, love is what makes something perfect, and love may well-of necessity- be open to sharing itself with less than perfect beings.
 
I heard one saint (I forget who) answer this question by replying that no matter who you are, if you were God you would do exactly what He has done because you would see clearly the wisdom and mercy in all of it. God’s ways are so far above our ways…
 
What Would You Do If You Were God? This question comes up periodically. Of course the answer is too simple: “NOTHING”. From the pinnacle all roads lead downhill. A perfection cannot be improved upon, no matter what is added to it or taken from it. The only logical thing would be to do nothing.

As such the posited God of Christianty is an illogical and irrational being. Since creating anything will destroy his “lonely perfection”, only an irrational and illogical being would want to do that. And the believers want to “sell” that kind of illogical being as being “perfect”. It does not work.
Spock, if I were God I’d beam you back on board the Enterprise!
 
I heard one saint (I forget who) answer this question by replying that no matter who you are, if you were God you would do exactly what He has done …
Yeah, that’s why I changed the scenario slightly when I replied. If I could truly become another I would expect to also have his or her preferences, biases, and identity. So I answered what would I suggest if Yahweh were taking suggestions for Universe version 2.0.
 
Yeah, that’s why I changed the scenario slightly when I replied. If I could truly become another I would expect to also have his or her preferences, biases, and identity. So I answered what would I suggest if Yahweh were taking suggestions for Universe version 2.0.
I think we all have suggestions to make to God from time to time, believer (in the form of prayer) and nonbeliever alike. But all things work out for the good for those who love (and/or IMO seek) God 🙂
 
What Would You Do If You Were God? This question comes up periodically. Of course the answer is too simple: “NOTHING”.
By God i assume you mean that which is: omnipotent, omniscient, incorporeal, existentially perfect, and is love.

The answer is not nothing. To be perfect is necessarily to express perfection. Gods being is perfect, a perfect being has no potential parts, and therefore God’s expression exists simultaneously with God’s being. His act and being are one. Therefore everything that is true of a perfect being exits as a timeless expression of that being. If it is true that a perfectly good being would share its existence with other beings, it would therefore follow as true that such beings exist simultaneously with God’s perfect expression and being; that is to say there is no temporal event before the existence of physical reality, because there is no physical sense of “before”. Given that God has perfect knowledge, perfect intelligence, is nonphysical, and acts according to his perfectly loving nature, change is not a requirement. Perfection simply acts according to its nature, and if an act is perfect then it was always an expression of perfection with no beginning or end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top