Creating God in one's own image.

[j]

But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself".  Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell.  We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.

-J

That's the equivalent of arresting a serial killer's parents of being at fault for giving birth to him.

Huh?  Only if the parents were omniscient.

You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

No, I'm not.  The cause is irrelevant.

God knew what the outcome of his actions would be.  Without free will, how would we choose to reject God?  We could not.  It's as simple as that.  Why were we given the option, and thus, the power to damn ourselves?

By the way I'm not stopping you from you know...Stopping yourself from going to Hell here. Jesus death ensured the free gift of salvation was available to all. It's your responsibility to accept that though.

Who said I was talking about myself?











*dodges lightning bolt*

-J

[Philawallafox]

I never said time was absolute, in fact I stated that it was relative.

then how can you say that God is affected by it?

If God is a spirit then he has no mass and therefore no time of distance.

[Adami]

I never said time was absolute, in fact I stated that it was relative.

then how can you say that God is affected by it?

If God is a spirit then he has no mass and therefore no time of distance.

I never said god was affected by time.

And why does lacking physical mass equal lacking time of distance?

EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot I was derailing this thread. I'm done. If you want to start another thread on this topic feel free.

[Philawallafox]

But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself".  Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell.  We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.

-J

That's the equivalent of arresting a serial killer's parents of being at fault for giving birth to him.

Huh?  Only if the parents were omniscient.

You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

No, I'm not.  The cause is irrelevant.

God knew what the outcome of his actions would be.  Without free will, how would we choose to reject God?  We could not.  It's as simple as that.  Why were we given the option, and thus, the power to damn ourselves?

well that's where Jesus comes in. The first time we see Jesus predicted is right after the fall when God is cursing the serpent in Gen 3:15. You can just trust the umpteen biblical scholars on that one.

I never said time was absolute, in fact I stated that it was relative.

then how can you say that God is affected by it?

If God is a spirit then he has no mass and therefore no time of distance.

I never said god was affected by time.

And why does lacking physical mass equal lacking time of distance?

EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot I was derailing this thread. I'm done. If you want to start another thread on this topic feel free.

Actually it's a perfect example of creating a god in the image you desire.

You actually did say that God was effected by time when you said over and over again that he can't have forknowledge without foreordaining it to happen. you limited God to a guy who sits here in the present with us telling us all what to do. My argument was that he is in the future as well as the past and present. He knows what's going to happen because he saw it happen and can see it happening and saw it happening infinity ago.

[Adami]

EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot I was derailing this thread. I'm done. If you want to start another thread on this topic feel free.

[Philawallafox]

EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot I was derailing this thread. I'm done. If you want to start another thread on this topic feel free.

mm Things did get a little out of hand.

[ariich]

I don't consider time to be a measurment, I consider time to be the thing we measure.

We age, everything (except Madonna) ages. That's time working. We just make up the measurement aspect of it.

 

How can you prove that everything ages? What is the effect of time on a diamond? does it become dull? Does it get...smaller? I dunno how does it change? It certainly doesn't experience any changes as far as I know. Does time stop for that diamond once it reaches the stage of being a diamond?

There is quite a lot in physics that shows that time is irreversible and that everything does indeed age.

Time is not absolute, which we know from the effects of relativity (the faster something moves, the more time speeds up from their point of view and slows down from the point of view of a stationary observer).

Time does appear to only move forward though, according to the second law of thermodynamics. There's a concept called entropy, which can be seen in more layman's terms as basically being a measure of how chaotic and variable the structure of something is, which the second law shows will only increase with time in the absence of energy being put in (and we also know that there is a fixed amount of energy in the universe so it cannot just be created from nothing). Let's take the example of:
1) a glass, and
2) an identical glass that has been shattered into pieces.
The glass is a stable structure, its molecules cannot really move around so the configuration is pretty much static. That would have low entropy. The shattered glass you can do anything with, you could separate the pieces and put them anywhere, in any configuration, so the entropy is higher. It is very easy to get from 1 to 2 with minimal energy expended (just drop it on the floor) but to get from 2 to 1 is impossible without melting down the glass and starting again from scratch, which takes a whole load of energy to do. This is essentially the science behind the fact that everything ages.

Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.

[Philawallafox]

I don't consider time to be a measurment, I consider time to be the thing we measure.

We age, everything (except Madonna) ages. That's time working. We just make up the measurement aspect of it.

 

How can you prove that everything ages? What is the effect of time on a diamond? does it become dull? Does it get...smaller? I dunno how does it change? It certainly doesn't experience any changes as far as I know. Does time stop for that diamond once it reaches the stage of being a diamond?

There is quite a lot in physics that shows that time is irreversible and that everything does indeed age.

Time is not absolute, which we know from the effects of relativity (the faster something moves, the more time speeds up from their point of view and slows down from the point of view of a stationary observer).

Time does appear to only move forward though, according to the second law of thermodynamics. There's a concept called entropy, which can be seen in more layman's terms as basically being a measure of how chaotic and variable the structure of something is, which the second law shows will only increase with time in the absence of energy being put in (and we also know that there is a fixed amount of energy in the universe so it cannot just be created from nothing). Let's take the example of:
1) a glass, and
2) an identical glass that has been shattered into pieces.
The glass is a stable structure, its molecules cannot really move around so the configuration is pretty much static. That would have low entropy. The shattered glass you can do anything with, you could separate the pieces and put them anywhere, in any configuration, so the entropy is higher. It is very easy to get from 1 to 2 with minimal energy expended (just drop it on the floor) but to get from 2 to 1 is impossible without melting down the glass and starting again from scratch, which takes a whole load of energy to do. This is essentially the science behind the fact that everything ages.

Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.

Well good on you! Thankyou for proving my point lol. I don't dispute that time can't go backwards. my claim that God has no need of time because he's omnipresent.

the result of that doctrine is that he can foreordain some things and foreknow others. He foreknows because he sees it happen as it happens. to wear the star wars metaphor to shreds let's look at it again.

Umm I guess we could say that god is a bit like Schroedingers cat. He's outside time thefore is both a spectator (and see's Vader cut Luke's hand off) and editor at the same time (and makes sure yoda is at the right place at the right time when Luke crashes) and then not at the exact same time. We wont know until the end of this age when the box is opens.

Does that make sense?

[j]

But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself".  Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell.  We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.

-J

That's the equivalent of arresting a serial killer's parents of being at fault for giving birth to him.

Huh?  Only if the parents were omniscient.

You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

No, I'm not.  The cause is irrelevant.

God knew what the outcome of his actions would be.  Without free will, how would we choose to reject God?  We could not.  It's as simple as that.  Why were we given the option, and thus, the power to damn ourselves?

well that's where Jesus comes in. The first time we see Jesus predicted is right after the fall when God is cursing the serpent in Gen 3:15. You can just trust the umpteen biblical scholars on that one.

Right.  My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary.  The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.

Now, onto the discussion of pre-determinism, some people seem to be struggling with the concept of it. Adami isn't necessitating that God is the one who pre-ordains everything, but if He knows everything that has happened and will happen then it has been pre-determined because there is no way that things could happen differently. In the Star Wars example, the viewer knows what is going to happen even though they had nothing to do with making the film, but it is the film's makers who pre-determine all the events throughout. Whether God is the one who determines everything that will happen or not is irrelevant, if he knows it then nothing can deviate from it, and thus it is pre-determined.

God is said to exist *outside* of time.  He doesn't know things "before" they happen per se, he just knows them.  Him knowing whether you will have a ham sandwich or a PB&J for lunch doesn't mean you still can't choose either.  He can simply see the future in which you've already chosen PB&J.  This is pretty straightforward, I'm not sure what it is about it that's so difficult to grasp.

But maybe there exists a hypothetical alternate dimension in which you make a ham sandwich instead.  That's where things get confusing, IMO.

-J

[Philawallafox]

Right.  My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary.  The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.

-J

well unfortunately this is one of the points where I look at you and shrug.

The chief end of man is to glorify God. the chief end of God is to glorify God. If it weren't God wouldn't be God. If God does anything it's for his own glory. Obviously Jesus coming and death and subsequent resurrection was for God's glory.
I guess that means that redemption glorifies God more than...well, not.

[Seventh Son]

Right.  My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary.  The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.

-J

well unfortunately this is one of the points where I look at you and shrug.

The chief end of man is to glorify God. the chief end of God is to glorify God. If it weren't God wouldn't be God. If God does anything it's for his own glory. Obviously Jesus coming and death and subsequent resurrection was for God's glory.
I guess that means that redemption glorifies God more than...well, not.

And that quite frankly, disturbs me. Why would God create the entire human race for the sole purpose of glorifying him? That seems to be a bit of an ego trip, and rides on the edge of pretentiousness if you ask me. If God is perfect, then I would assume that God would not be belittled by petty things like an ego trip.

I also can't help but feel that if my existence is nothing more than to glorify some deity I've never laid eyes on, well to me that's a very hallow existence. It says to me that all humans are good for is slavery and servitude, something I take a good degree of offense to. If such a God were truly loving, I think humanity's worth would be more than just being God's little bitch.

Now, reading through the thread, I do think rumborak went a bit far in his arguments and even though I'm not religious I don't even agree with what he said. I mean no hostility at all either, in case it seems that way or something.

[j]

Right.  My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary.  The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.

-J

well unfortunately this is one of the points where I look at you and shrug.

The chief end of man is to glorify God. the chief end of God is to glorify God. If it weren't God wouldn't be God. If God does anything it's for his own glory. Obviously Jesus coming and death and subsequent resurrection was for God's glory.
I guess that means that redemption glorifies God more than...well, not.

God is perfect and complete.  Why does he need to "glorify himself"?

-J

[Philawallafox]

Right.  My point is that none of that (Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) should have been necessary.  The bible is full of God trying to right man's wrongs...but he knew all of this before he ever created man with free will, and yet went ahead with it anyway.

-J

well unfortunately this is one of the points where I look at you and shrug.

The chief end of man is to glorify God. the chief end of God is to glorify God. If it weren't God wouldn't be God. If God does anything it's for his own glory. Obviously Jesus coming and death and subsequent resurrection was for God's glory.
I guess that means that redemption glorifies God more than...well, not.

And that quite frankly, disturbs me. Why would God create the entire human race for the sole purpose of glorifying him? That seems to be a bit of an ego trip, and rides on the edge of pretentiousness if you ask me. If God is perfect, then I would assume that God would not be belittled by petty things like an ego trip.

I also can't help but feel that if my existence is nothing more than to glorify some deity I've never laid eyes on, well to me that's a very hallow existence. It says to me that all humans are good for is slavery and servitude, something I take a good degree of offense to. If such a God were truly loving, I think humanity's worth would be more than just being God's little bitch.

Now, reading through the thread, I do think rumborak went a bit far in his arguments and even though I'm not religious I don't even agree with what he said. I mean no hostility at all either, in case it seems that way or something.

mm I know that's a bit of a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here's a bit of logic for you.

God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.
Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.

See how that's semi-chiastic? lol

If a perfectly loving God were to not say look at me look at me look how good and how awesome I am and how much better I am than any alternative (because He IS good and awesome and infinitely better than any alternative) He would be depriving us of Love. So He glorifies himself out of his Love for us.

Unfortunately we go to the broken cisterns of the world tell them to quench our thirst.

I'm gonna say that it's 2:30 am here and i'm tired. I haven't got alot of study on this subject in so i'm not very good at explaining it but what I've said (though confusing) is the gist of it. You could have a look at John Piper's book Desiring God or even listen to some of his sermons at www.desiringgod.org He has a really good handle on the subject.

[Seventh Son]

That doesn't make any sense.

Glorifying yourself only reeks ego and pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.

[Philawallafox]

That doesn't make any sense.

Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.

It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.

In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?

[Adami]

Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.

[Seventh Son]

That doesn't make any sense.

Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.

It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.

In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?

What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.

As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?

[Philawallafox]

Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.

Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"

Kindly stick to the subject.

[Adami]

Fair enough. Have a good time.

[Seventh Son]

Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.

Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"

Kindly stick to the subject.

Wait, how the fuck does Adami come off as trollish?

[Philawallafox]

That doesn't make any sense.

Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.

It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.

In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?

What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.

As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?

I'm suggesting that it's hypocritical of you to call the God of the entire universe arrogant.

[Seventh Son]

That doesn't make any sense.

Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.

It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.

In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?

What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.

As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?

I'm suggesting that it's hypocritical of you to call the God of the entire universe arrogant.

How is it hypocritical? What you're describing as God is very arrogant to me.

[Philawallafox]

Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.

Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"

Kindly stick to the subject.

Wait, how the fuck does Adami come off as trollish?

by a/ not sticking to the subject and b/ making unsubstantiated assertions and then saying people don't undertstand what they're talking about.

[j]

mm I know that's a bit of a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here's a bit of logic for you.

God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.

Lost me.  That is not logic.

Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.

What was the point of creating us and loving us at all?  If your answer is "to glorify himself", you have yet to demonstrate why a perfect and complete being would need to glorify himself.

And furthermore, how does that constitute "loving" us, if we assume love is based on selfless sacrifice, and all God is doing is glorifying himself?

-J

[Seventh Son]

Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.

Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"

Kindly stick to the subject.

Wait, how the fuck does Adami come off as trollish?

by a/ not sticking to the subject and b/ making unsubstantiated assertions and then saying people don't undertstand what they're talking about.

a. He made an observation about your arguing style that I happen to agree with.
b. I must have missed this part, care to link w/context?
c. I still don't see how that makes someone a troll.

[El JoNNo]

I realize Ariich answer much of this post already...

Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.

Omnipotence and omniscience cannot coinside with each infact omnipotence cannot coinside with itself. If God knows what he's going to do tomorrow, could he do something else? If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent. If god is omnipotent could he take that omnipotence away?

When attributing infinity to a sentient being it often fails.

If time isn't a human concept then who created it?

Well since time is the 4th dimesion and basically the flow of reality, the earliest measurement of time is the big bang. You could ask who create the singularity that produced this grand expansion, but then that would leave an infinite regression. Who creat the big bang? Who created the who that created the big bang? etc etc...

There is no point what-so-ever to assume there is a god.

Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.

Time is a dimension that can be measured, not a law. See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_as_.22unreal.22

Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects. Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days).[1][2][3] It is measured using a clock.
Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in the International System of Units. An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is used in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime bring questions about space into questions about time, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy.[1][2][3]

I'm sorry Phil. It's clear you don't understand the basics of science and I really don't want to explain them to you. I'll let one of the actual scientists here do that, if they feel the need.

If you want to call this a victory for you, feel free. Enjoy it.

You know you're right. I only graduated High school doing Physics and Chemistry. How about you explain to me with proofs how time is an absolute and therefore a constant. Rather than just saying "you're wrong because i think everything ages"

Everything ages whether or not it experiences decay is another matter. Things at Abolute Zero theroretically will not decay.

Physics and Chemistry do not cover Thermodynamics in high school I guess... don't know never took em.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#Laws_of_thermodynamics
Wikipedia has though.

mm I know that's a bit of a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here's a bit of logic for you.

God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.
Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.

This is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.




The God you discribe is egotistical, childish, undeserving, arrogant and self serving. You cannot see this because you have duped yourself into believing such nonsence. Doing mental flips to justify why this god is such a jerk.

[Philawallafox]

That doesn't make any sense.

Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.

It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.

In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?

What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.

As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?

I'm suggesting that it's hypocritical of you to call the God of the entire universe arrogant.

How is it hypocritical? What you're describing as God is very arrogant to me.

how many times can i refer you to an expert on the subject? He phrases it better than me and he's done quite alot more study on it than I have.

I'm assuming the hypothesis that God is perfect here.

As a result of his perfection he has perfect joy. to hide his perfection from us is to separate us from Joy. This is bad.
As a result of his perfection he has perfect love. To hide this perfect love from us is to separate us from his love. This is bad.

So he tells us to worship him and shows how much joy and love he has to us. It's better than the alternative.

[Seventh Son]

That doesn't make any sense.

Glorifying yourself only reeks ego pretense, not love. If God is perfect then he is neither of those. If he truly was perfect then God would not be so pompous as to constantly glorify himself. It makes God come off as an arrogant asshole, instead of a loving God.

It's only arrogance if you're imperfect. We're humble because God is not and has no purpose in humility. Again do some homework. www.desiringgod.org.

In the end if he's God and you're not what gives you the right to tell him that you wont worship him because you think he's arrogant?

What you're describing isn't love, its only self-serving and ego-padding. Its still arrogance one way or another and if God is arrogant then I will take the position that God isn't perfect.

As for your second line, are you suggesting that I have to worship him because you think he's perfect? That's bullshit, plain and simple, and I take a lot of offense to it. I refuse to worship anything that views the human race as its own little bitch, consequences be damned. If humanity has to praise God, then God can return the favor every now and then, eh?

I'm suggesting that it's hypocritical of you to call the God of the entire universe arrogant.

How is it hypocritical? What you're describing as God is very arrogant to me.

how many times can i refer you to an expert on the subject? He phrases it better than me and he's done quite alot more study on it than I have.

I'm assuming the hypothesis that God is perfect here.

As a result of his perfection he has perfect joy. to hide his perfection from us is to separate us from Joy. This is bad.
As a result of his perfection he has perfect love. To hide this perfect love from us is to separate us from his love. This is bad.

So he tells us to worship him and shows how much joy and love he has to us. It's better than the alternative.

Because you're talking to someone who doesn't believe it despite numerous attempts by many people where I live to forcefully convert me (Once even to the point of someone threatening to kill me for it), so the hypothesis that "God is perfect" doesn't mean the same to me. I suppose looking at it from your view it would, but there's a big difference in someone who believes it with all their heart and a non-believer. However, taking your hypothesis into account....

1. If God has "perfect joy" (Whatever that is), then I would presume God would be so happy as to never experience any kind of anger ever, correct? God would never express any negative emotions that clearly deviate from "perfect joy".
2. Well, what makes love perfect? If his love is so strong, then would God do anything and everything in his power (Which in infinite, assuming he is omnipotent) to protect his own creations assuming he holds perfect love for them. If he truly loved them perfectly, any past transgressions wouldn't even be considered, so there would be no need for hell.

[Philawallafox]

I realize Ariich answer much of this post already...

Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.

Omnipotence and omniscience cannot coinside with each infact omnipotence cannot coinside with itself. If God knows what he's going to do tomorrow, could he do something else? If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent. If god is omnipotent could he take that omnipotence away?

When attributing infinity to a sentient being it often fails.

If time isn't a human concept then who created it?

Well since time is the 4th dimesion and basically the flow of reality, the earliest measurement of time is the big bang. You could ask who create the singularity that produced this grand expansion, but then that would leave an infinite regression. Who creat the big bang? Who created the who that created the big bang? etc etc...

There is no point what-so-ever to assume there is a god.

Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.

Time is a dimension that can be measured, not a law. See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_as_.22unreal.22

Time is a one-dimensional quantity used to sequence events, to quantify the durations of events and the intervals between them, and (used together with space) to quantify and measure the motions of objects. Time is quantified in comparative terms (such as longer, shorter, faster, quicker, slower) or in numerical terms using units (such as seconds, minutes, hours, days).[1][2][3] It is measured using a clock.
Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in the International System of Units. An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is used in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime bring questions about space into questions about time, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy.[1][2][3]

I'm sorry Phil. It's clear you don't understand the basics of science and I really don't want to explain them to you. I'll let one of the actual scientists here do that, if they feel the need.

If you want to call this a victory for you, feel free. Enjoy it.

You know you're right. I only graduated High school doing Physics and Chemistry. How about you explain to me with proofs how time is an absolute and therefore a constant. Rather than just saying "you're wrong because i think everything ages"

Everything ages whether or not it experiences decay is another matter. Things at Abolute Zero theroretically will not decay.

Physics and Chemistry do not cover Thermodynamics in high school I guess... don't know never took em.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#Laws_of_thermodynamics
Wikipedia has though.

mm I know that's a bit of a stumbling block for a lot of people. Here's a bit of logic for you.

God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.
Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.

This is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.




The God you discribe is egotistical, childish, undeserving, arrogant and self serving. You cannot see this because you have duped yourself into believing such nonsence. Doing mental flips to justify why this god is such a jerk.

I never claimed to be an expert or anything but you actually proved my point a couple of times there.

1/ you once again applied time to God. He's Omnipresent.
2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.
3/ thankyou for proving the above point.
4/ the point is moot. Adami was beside the point and I was frustrated. I know the diamond ages and thankyou for saying that stuff at absolute zero doesn't decay. My point was that though they experience time they aren't affected by it.
5/ then use logic to debunk mine.

You mentioned a causality argument. Causality falls apart without an uncaused event at the beginning.
I say that God was the uncreated creator.

I'd like to note here that I have been respectful as I can and haven't descended to mudslinging statements like: this is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.

I would appreciate it if you were to refrain from that from hereonin.

[Philawallafox]

Seventh. i'll get back to you later but here in melbourne it's 4am and I need to sleep.

Sorry.

[j]

2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.

  Gaps in WHAT?

-J

[rumborak]

These days I stay out of these kinds of discussions because I remind myself that, if this were a discussion about whether an airplane takes off a conveyor belt, the same guys who here don't allow the use of time, physics, logics, whathaveyou because it would speak against their scripture, would be perfectly fine with those arguments in the case of the airplane (or any other discussion that doesn't touch religious aspects for that matter).

rumborak

[Ħ]

2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.

  Gaps in WHAT?

-J

Gaps in time, silly.  Wait a sec... *brainsplode*

[GuineaPig]

I think 99% of the world does not know how we define our units of time.

[Ħ]

I think 99% of the world does not know how we define our units of time.

It's one thing to define units of time, which is simple, but quite another to define time itself.  I doubt anyone really can.  It's one of those things that you really can't grasp.