Is the God living a miserable life?

[AqD]

Since he is omnipotent:

1. He wouldn't want to create new things, because there can be nothing new to him?
2. He wouldn't want to fix existing things, because everythings are created exactly in the way he wanted.
3. He wouldn't want to research anything, because he can know it instantly?
4. He wouldn't want to watch and help your stupid life either, because you and the world are just like the computer program he created and thus he knows all possibilities. If you have any problem, it's pre-designed. If some magic being come to save your ass, it's pre-designed too (and your praying or not is designed too!)

So what's the purpose of his life? What would he do everyday? Wouldn't he get bored like us modders getting tired of designing worlds in TW mods? (and we're not even omnipotent for modding)

[Ak1980]

He can play real 3D RPG game using our life!

[AqD]

He can play real 3D RPG game using our life!

But he's not as primitive as humans!

Would you, as a human, play a RPG game that simulates a pig's life - sleeping, bathing, eating, and growing fat, and repeat these over and over again? Or the life of a worm or ant? You wouldn't even need a manual for everything in their world!

I think it's a bit absurd to apply our understanding of entertainment and happiness to a divine being.

All right, skip that part, so what would he do all day? Just guess!

[Ak1980]

But he's not as primitive as humans!

Would you, as a human, play a RPG game that simulates a pig's life - sleeping, bathing, eating, and growing fat, and repeat these over and over again? Or the life of a worm or ant? You wouldn't even need a manual for everything in their world!



All right, skip that part, so what would he do all day? Just guess!

But God created us based on His image. It's more like if we can clone human and do anything that we want with our clone, Aqua Barbie Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhrY...feature=fvwrel ?

[Taiji]

Would you, as a human, play a RPG game that simulates a pig's life - sleeping, bathing, eating, and growing fat, and repeat these over and over again?

I think you just predicted the next wave of facebook games.

[Cooraan]

I think it's a bit absurd to apply our understanding of entertainment and happiness to a divine being.

[The Dude]

I think it's a bit absurd to apply our understanding of entertainment and happiness to a divine being.

Read: "please don't apply logic to the magical sky man because then it becomes too evident that it doesn't make sense."

God is outside of time. I don't see what's hard to understand about that.

That it's a nonsensical statement but still passes as an intellectual phrase of import is what I don't understand. But that's just me.

Perfection cant lack anything, so no.

Except flaws.

[Phier]

Sand Box games are always the best.

[Squiggle]

Except flaws.

Whyd you even say that? Such a meaningless reply.

* Sincere, not malicious in anyway.

That it's a nonsensical statement but still passes as an intellectual phrase of import is what I don't understand. But that's just me.

Hows that?

[The Dude]

Whyd you even say that? Such a meaningless reply.

* Sincere, not malicious in anyway. Hows that?

You may recall something else that you called meaningless (or was that Sig? I don't remember) long ago, when I said that it's strife between elements that acts as the main force of creation. Two entities meet in conflict and from their conflict comes a synthesis of parts. And something new is born. Things get born out of strife all the time, whether they're material, intellectual, etc.

You cannot have a conflict between opposites if both are perfect. If they're perfect, they're not opposites, they're equals. Flaws are a necessary presence, in order for things to be distinguished from one another. Perfect things are stagnant things: they never change because they don't have to. Yet how can something that never changes and is forever stagnant be a force of creation? The way I see it, perfection and nothingness are interchangable, and in order for the idea of divine creation to be legitimised, creatio ex nihilo has to be justified in practicality rather than in sophistry, and so far it's never been.

[Squiggle]

You may recall something else that you called meaningless (or was that Sig? I don't remember) long ago, when I said that it's strife between elements that acts as the main force of creation. Two entities meet in conflict and from their conflict comes a synthesis of parts. And something new is born. Things get born out of strife all the time, whether they're material, intellectual, etc.

You cannot have a conflict between opposites if both are perfect. If they're perfect, they're not opposites, they're equals. Flaws are a necessary presence, in order for things to be distinguished from one another. Perfect things are stagnant things: they never change because they don't have to. Yet how can something that never changes and is forever stagnant be a force of creation? The way I see it, perfection and nothingness are interchangable, and in order for the idea of divine creation to be legitimised, creatio ex nihilo has to be justified in practicality rather than in sophistry, and so far it's never been.

Perfection does not imply immutability. Certainly no characteristic in which we would call God perfect could change, i.e he couldnt be more good, but certainly there is no explicit contradiction between the notion of a perfect being, and an agent with libertarian free will. If the two are reconcilable notions, a perfect being with free will can choose to act, and change in reference of knowledge. I.e, I am creating, I was creating, I will create. But as I said initially, a perfect being cant lack anything, so these actions whatever they are can not be born out of some emotional lack, but actually could only be the outgrowth of perfect compassion, etc.

If you think perfection and libertarian free will are contradictory i'd be willing to hear the argument, but until then I dont really see any basis for your POV.

[Cooraan]

Read: "please don't apply logic to the magical sky man because then it becomes too evident that it doesn't make sense."

Lol ok sure. I meant that what we find entertaining probably doesn't hold true for God. Who says He even needs entertainment? We entertain our selves to pass time and to relax. If God is who we think He is then what real need would there be for entertainment?

[Ak1980]

Lol ok sure. I meant that what we find entertaining probably doesn't hold true for God. Who says He even needs entertainment? We entertain our selves to pass time and to relax. If God is who we think He is then what real need would there be for entertainment?

Bible said. I believe there is plenty passage that said someone action is pleasing the God. Also in Bible Israel used to burn lamb for sacrificed, for God entertainment maybe?

[Lysimachus]

Lol ok sure. I meant that what we find entertaining probably doesn't hold true for God. Who says He even needs entertainment? We entertain our selves to pass time and to relax. If God is who we think He is then what real need would there be for entertainment?

I don't understand how throwing more questions at someone makes for a valid counter argument.

[AqD]

Lol ok sure. I meant that what we find entertaining probably doesn't hold true for God. Who says He even needs entertainment? We entertain our selves to pass time and to relax. If God is who we think He is then what real need would there be for entertainment?

It's more than entertainment! What's the goal of his..... (um, if not 'life' I dunno how to call it) ?

Wouldn't it be miserable if one has no desire to be satisfied and no goal to be achieved? What would he do all the time? Wake up and watch the sky (which is probably like a blank wall to him)?

No he doesnt, because he doesnt exist

Let's just assume he does exist, in the same way as the bible and others variants describe!

[DarthLazy]

Let's just assume he does exist, in the same way as the bible and others variants describe!

Not possible .

[Tankbuster]

Lol ok sure. I meant that what we find entertaining probably doesn't hold true for God. Who says He even needs entertainment? We entertain our selves to pass time and to relax. If God is who we think He is then what real need would there be for entertainment?

Asking whether God is "entertained" is indeed rather silly.

I think a better question is: does an eternal God have a purpose to his existence? If I were to ask him "Hey buddy, why are you here?" would he have an answer? After all, he's eternal and has essentially no-one to ask but himself.
Because of he thinks he has a purpose, that's a slamdunk for the case that you can have meaning in a life without a God.

[arten800]

I believe god created the universe using science like mars he created it atoms he created atoms etc

[Denny Crane!]

I think it's a bit absurd to apply our understanding of entertainment and happiness to a divine being.

Yet we are fine to apply our understanding of morality and say we know what he thinks, gotcha!

[DarthLazy]

God does not live .