Universes are a byproduct of God's perpetual live cycle?

If our universe was created by God, then for this premise I will make a little guess:

How is far to complex, but why may be easier to estimate.

Is God all-mighty? Does God need anything?
If God has a need, then when he does not get what he needs, he will be worse off then if he did get what he needed; this would mean God was not invincible. Humans, for example, need to breath. Needs are weaknesses, if denied, but also – God would not act if he needed nothing, because he would no-longer have any reason or desire to act. All life acts for its own reason, whether it be an exercising of ability or a form of work for self.

So, can God have a need and need-nothing at the same time? Or can God have a need and be invincible at the same time? Only if God’s needs where not deniable, would God be able to have both need and invincibility.

The only way that God’s need could not be denied, is if he was always able to have what he needed, and was independent from a higher environment or home in which to feed off of. This would mean a form of automatic self-sufficiency; at the same time, God created everything, even though he did not need an environment and was self-sufficient?

So, why would he create a universe if he had no external need?
Well, God created the universe, he made it, he ‘eat’ it.

Life on earth consumes matter and energy, then uses it to build and power itself. We consume and restructure things, we DO NOT “create”, we simply change our environment and utilize it for our own need. God does not need to do this, because God is above and beyond an environment.

If God was self-sufficient, and had need – then it would be most likely that he created what he needed, instead of consuming it from an environment that he was within and lesser then.

Much like a nuclear power plant, God’s internal energy source is based on reactions, and the waste is discharged as the reactions continue to take place. “Big bangs” are stable and can support life, because much like an atomic-power-plant, these powerful reactions must be stable and controlled if they are able to be utilized at all. Universes have their own time and space/distance, within themselves, but God is beyond these dimensions, therefor these sub dimensions can infinitely be created without using up a finite amount of room for universes to exist within.
Universes are the byproduct of God’s self-sufficient internal life processes. God has created so many universes by now that nobody could count them all, and God doesn’t need to count or interact with these universes, so he doesn’t. We need to consume matter and energy, but God needs to do the opposite of that; God needs to produce and create matter and energy, or should I say, matter and energy are a byproduct of God’s internal super-reactions that help him ‘live’.

God, is not a “he” – it is not humane, it is a stable and infinite process of self-sufficient creation.

Not that I’m right. I just said all that for the hell of it.
=)

I agree so far, God has no needs.

This statement is only logical if need were the only basis for action. However, there are many other motivations for action. I don’t need to eat 6 brownies at a time, but sometimes I do.

Love is a powerful motivational force that often results in action. I don’t need to give my kids a hug when I come home from work but I usually do. I am motivated by love to an action that fulfills another’s need, the need to be loved and accepted by a parent. I think God’s motivation in creation was similarly motivated, not out of his need but out of love. But that’s just my opinion…

Well I wont make stupid homer impressions this time in my reply to you,
please note that I was not serious, and just being insane most of the time.

Humans have love for their family, their friends, etc. Do we need our friends and our familty? Love comes from need. We also get pleasure from eating because we need to eat, and then there is a feeling which motivates us. You hug your kids and love them because your species needs the future to be fueled and cared for.

I thought that – if there was a God – “He” is just a stable process that discharges universes during ‘His’ “life cycle”.

If you think God created life on earth out of love, then why is our eco-system based on death? It has NO MERCY. Humans invented mercy, because we are so social and decent. In the “Essays and thesises” are of ILP I wrote a thread called “Dan’s Darwinian Existentialism” – in their I forwarded the theory that the meaning of life was survival, and as the meaning of civilized life got farther and farther away from barberic nature – nature and life began to look meaningless, or we began to expect our new meaning to exist universally and naturally.

You want God to be a certain way, for a complex reason – and I suspect that reason is due to the kind of life and existence you now have in a civilized society.

No problem. Periods of insanity probably make lucidity seem more worthwhile.

There is an evolutionary argument in here somewhere but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to apply it here. Even if I accept your argument, at a minimum my example with the brownies shows that need does not explain ALL action. I obviously have a need to eat something, but 6 brownies is way beyond my calorie requirements. The fact that I still do it shows that I am sometimes motivated by things other than need. Ditto God. Boy, this is making me hungry…where are those brownies?

Because of the evil introduced by the fall. Don’t blame God, blame man. The bible teaches that the earth was perfect. Isaiah states that one day the wolf and sheep will lie down together, indicating that the prey of one species upon another is not God’s intent for our world.

You are not the first person to believe in social progress and you wont be the last. I don’t buy that argument. Take a look at what happened recently in Bosnia, Rwanda, and elsewhere before you start patting humankind on the back. We have not got any better, in fact we may have become worse.

Your subjective example of variety in methods of stimulation and consumption, stem from an even more complex need that the eco-system has for diversity.

Imagine a human being that never did anything new, and only ate 1 kind of food and had 1 kind of mental stimulation per day? This wouldn’t work. Within anthropology, there needs to be a language and a high enough population before the interchange of new ideas reaches a certian level of technological advacement.

Insest is bad for the genes, because of the same-old-genes instead of new and diverse genes interacting.

You do need variety in your life, and when artists are creative and pain pictures, this is the expression of what they are and what they need and love, which is diversity. A wide range of species, of plants and animals, means that the eco-system can survive drastic changes. Diversity leads to adaptability, which is a survival tool, which is part of the meaning of life, which is part of the need of life.

My little idea about “God” in this thread, was about creation and origin, not a super-being that was alive and had good qualities. The argument of origin VS existent and relative beings is a complex one, but do you think there is a chance that “God” was like Jesus? Limited? Deep love that could not “live up to” is limited abilities? He could not heal all of the sick and teach all of humanity, he could only do a small amount of things. So, if he is the “son of God” – wouldn’t he be very similar to “God”, also?

But if the creator + truth + God + love things get mixed together,
why is it man’s fault that a complex and vast eco-system of DNA and order was so sharply altered by 1 man and 1 woman consuming 1 piece of fruit from 1 tree in 1 garden on 1 planet in 1 galaxie within 1 universe? Was this tiny speck to blame for anything other then the effect of its actions upon itself?

See the “I am God” thread.
I think that you would be better of to say this:
When you chose to act, you create action. When your brain thinks, you create thought. When you bodily cells replace themselves, you are recreating your own body. We create ourselves, and we cannot blame eachother. We can’t blame God, and God can’t blame us. Anything less, is untrue, when we are talking about existences.

“We” got better and worse, but look outside at all of the people who are not willing to hurt or kill you. People kill out of desporation and strong desire, this is not peace.

You can list off murderers in Bosnia, or you can step into a hospital in your own hometown or city and see people who spend hours and hours of every day of their life trying to save lives and heal damage.

The “sin” is when the man begins to drink the blood of his “children”, and when he is irresponsable with the future and the masses.

The event of a parasite or a predator already exists in nature, because it could. Tapeworms and eagles are examples of parasites and killers, and this is how they get by in life.

Random mutations, and then practice, sucess and development, made these species in the ecosystem, after much time.

The same happens to a baby. Born into chaos, if it randomly does choose “evil” as its means, and practices this with success, the habbit becomes character and “self”. I am sorry, but bad things happen because they can, and so do good things happen – because they can.

This is a diverse, imperfect and progressive free-for-all that doesn’t have any rules other then survival vs failure. Chaos vs order.

That is exactly my point. That there are a variety of reasons for action. They do not all boil down to individual need as you had previously suggested. Thus God’s reasons for creation may not neccesarily have anything to do with God’s need. Therefore your conclusion that God is logically imperfect is flawed.

Yes, I think you are making my point for me. That individual need does not explain all action.

I’m not sure where you are going with this. Diversity is obviously critical to maintenance of life when facing a multitude of selective pressures.

Yes.

Jesus was fully God and fully man. To say that he was “limited” suggests that he was not God. Is that what you mean?

If I ignore the signs and start a fire in the forest that then destroys a whole city block, why would anyone blame me? I was only cooking my breakfast? Right?

The logical extension of this argument is that no one can be blamed for their actions. Are you happy when someone steals your car? Or if they start selling drugs outside your local elementary school? Or maybe break into your house, kill your dog and take a dump on your bed? At what point should people be held to account for their actions?

I didn’t say everyone was a murderer. But I don’t see ANY moral progress in our species. I think this is good evidence that humans are not capable of moral progress outside of the divine.

I disagree. We are responsible for our actions. There are outside pressures to be sure, but no-one makes our choices for us, we do.

Can you choose whether you want to have sex or not? Or do you simply try to guide what you are, and what you can’t fully control? Can you just not be affraid of something that is really scarry, or what? Self control is limited. Yes, in society – punishment is needed so that radicals are silenced. We have social order.

I don’t want to talk about all this anymore, though.
Some people believe firmly in things that weren’t there, and there is no proof to disprove.

Maybe ask for God to do something then, as a sign of his power existing? If people can’t prove that he exists, maybe he can.