Supreme being?

[paigetheoracle]

You got me there, Sanctus.

 

An omniscient being will probably find no joy in screwing with humans, because he will already know the outcome. Matter of fact, I don't think an omniscient being will find any joy in anything at all, really.

 

The poor baby. It must really, really suck to be him.

 

This is very true and I should know as I'm a really miserable old bastard. Which brings me to the point that I'm sure a lot of you guessed already I had an ulterior motive in posting this thread - you see I am God ('No, I am Spartacus!'). I have even heard people on the site admit as much 'Oh God, not you again!' So yes, this is me finally outing myself after hiding in my own psyche for years, so that I could mess about with the destiny of men, small that it is, compared with the rest of the universe: God within - devil without.

[paigetheoracle]

This idea strikes me as very similar to some associated with some variants of the theological concept of the Demiurge. Many religions, notable various Gnostic ones, hold that all that we perceive – that is, all that is physical – is the creation of a lesser “craftsman” creative deity, formed, or in more modern, computer-y terms, emulated within, a much superior reality that was created by an ultimate creative deity – the “true God”. Some religions equate the Demiurge with the devil, and the physical universe with a instrument of deception and separation of the mundane from the divine.

 

In my own idiosyncratic view of theology, the Demiurge concept is a key feature of the preliminaries of Descartes’s theology. One of the first questions he considered was how we can be certain of our own existence, and the existence of the physical universe as revealed by our senses, if an omnipotent being wishes for its own possibly incomprehensible reasons to deceive us. He concludes, via some IMHO rather shaky arguments, to conclude that the ultimate omnipotent being must be kind, and that as we humans seem to be very, perhaps most, gratified by making progress in understanding reality, wouldn’t do such a thing, and that ultimate reality may eventually be understood via our perception of physical reality, and rational thought.

 

I think, therefore, that the theological and philosophical traditions epitomized and/or strongly influenced by Descartes and theological systems affirming the existence of a Demiurge are profoundly opposite.

 

The Matrix is, I believe, a recent, fictional expression of the concept of the Demiurge concept. In this case, the Demiurge is not a supernatural being, but a complicated computer system, but in essence, it’s the same idea.

 

I agree about the Demiurge, having read some Descartes and a bit on Gnosticism. How can the real God argue with himself or have differing views, depending on which religion spawned him, unless these beings are as flawed as the rest of us (a Supreme 'Being', would have nobody else to argue with as he'd be in agreement with everything and everyone, seeing the beauty and harmony in everything only the unenlightened can't: Therefore Go(o)d has to be whole in mind and body, even if other beings on the way to this state aren't and can't be).

 

Well done! Liked the post but I knew I would as I wrote it (See quote above).:naughty:

[HydrogenBond]

Most of the flaws within the universe, that humans see, are defined by humans. We as humans, may not be able to see divine perfection by our own definition.

 

For example, the parents may not want the child to eat junk food, today. In the shorter time scale of the child, more based on immediate gratification, this cruel punishment looks like the world is coming to an end. Why would his parents do such a terrible thing. The child may suddenly realize his parents are not perfect, like they had always been, in the good old days (last week). But in the time scale of the adult, who has been there and done that, they know the child will survive this terrible ordeal and be better off because of their cruel imperfection. Eventually the child will grow up, the time scale of their perception will expand, and they will suddenly have the sense of perspective to see this was perfection.

 

To paraphrase Mark Twain, " when I was younger my father was so ignorant, I couldn't stand to be around him. Now that I am older, I am amazed how much my father learned in just a few short years.

[paigetheoracle]

Most of the flaws within the universe, that humans see, are defined by humans. We as humans, may not be able to see divine perfection by our own definition.

 

For example, the parents may not want the child to eat junk food, today. In the shorter time scale of the child, more based on immediate gratification, this cruel punishment looks like the world is coming to an end. Why would his parents do such a terrible thing. The child may suddenly realize his parents are not perfect, like they had always been, in the good old days (last week). But in the time scale of the adult, who has been there and done that, they know the child will survive this terrible ordeal and be better off because of their cruel imperfection. Eventually the child will grow up, the time scale of their perception will expand, and they will suddenly have the sense of perspective to see this was perfection.

 

To paraphrase Mark Twain, " when I was younger my father was so ignorant, I couldn't stand to be around him. Now that I am older, I am amazed how much my father learned in just a few short years.

 

This almost had me rolling around on the floor laughing because it was so perceptive!

[skeptic griggsy]

Mark Twain would now say that one has misunderstood him as he was an atheist! He'd say that was clap-trap based on the greater good argument ad the one from ignorance: t'is not necessary to traverse the Cosmos or be omniscient to find no evidence and indeed to find evidence against God and that e has no more significance than an square circle or married bachelor!

Neither postulation, definition nor faith can substantiate His existence!

So no divine perfection perforce can exist! We inhabit a dysteleological world as David Hume's dysteleological or argument form imperfections adumbrates.

[Illiad]

I think god (if there's even 1 to begin with) is only a observer. Probably omnipresent, not omniscient.

Maybe we're a sort of an experiment, a computer to model out something this god created us to do. Mr horns with a cool tail (if there's even 1 to begin with) just happens to be a unhappy lab partner (or part of the experiment? )

[Vox]

Most of the flaws within the universe, that humans see, are defined by humans. We as humans, may not be able to see divine perfection by our own definition.

 

So you state that apart from human made flaws assumptions there is also actual flaws in the Universe? How could there be flaws in the universe which is flawless ?

 

And for the topic, why should anyone be looking for "God" outside of anything?

[C1ay]

God.....

 

Can you all come up with an agreeable definition here? One that satisfies everyone? I'll be back when you finish......if I'm still alive. So far that debate has lasted 1000s of years and I don't tend to think I'm going to live that long.

[dduckwessel]

I'm playing the Devil's advocate here.

 

What if the Lord of Creation as the Creationists see him*/ it are true? Could God be playing tricks with our mind by altering reality as in The Matrix? Could the Supreme Being alter what we take to be fixed reality, so that we gain the illusion that this world was created millions of years ago, instead f five minutes ago, under our very feet and away from our sight? (Bishop Berkeley's point about the quad not being there, if we aren't here to witness it).

 

 

God doesn't mess with peoples minds but then God is not here, is he?

 

If he were it would all be perfect and eternal and the universe would be friendly to human habitation. As it stands, it's hardly perfect (extreme poverty in many places, wars, suffering, etc.) and God is strangely absent.

 

It's not Matrix-like (we can't jump in and out) but as I said on another thread, it's a hologram (Quantum Physics has recently said that our seeming reality is like pixels generated from somewhere else), a clever ruse by the 'god of this world (Satan - 2 Cor. 4:4)'.

 

There's a law here that says if we jump from a ten story building without a parachute onto pavement, we will die and it's not a law I intend to put to the test. We have a physical body and it can die, but it appears our true self (our eternal spirit) is on another plain and images from there are projected to this holographic world.

 

The images start out perfectly but as they enter this pseudo-reality they change and become like a corrupted file. The collective consciousness keeps reaffirming the images (positive or negative) because we believe it's real.