Something from the Billy Carson and Wes Huff debate got me thinking, if God did create the universe does this necessarily mean that he is super intelligent? What are all of the ways that God might have created the universe, as in what are the means and methods of it?
If God is all-powerful, he could perhaps think to himself “I will create a universe” and it might just pop into being. Did he need to think about all of the details, plan everything, design the natural laws and mathematics of chemistry and physics and all that? I don’t think so, or at least it is reasonable to think that it’s at least possible that he didn’t need to put in all of that work or foresight. Intelligence might not even be needed, all that is needed could simply be the whole ‘omnipotent, all-powerful’ thing.
What I mean is, it’s easy to imagine a godly being with intelligence or awareness more or less similar to ourselves, but having the powers of a genie is able to just say or think something into being and it manifests fully formed. Genie’s don’t need to know how a car is made to manifest a new car if their master commands them to.
It sounds so nice to think about, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity with an essence of perfection to include the fullness of all human ideals. But I don’t think it’s easy to imagine at all. The purported incomprehensibility of such superiority is somehow intended to merit worship. Such methodology is not universally appealing.
Edit: If a nature so rife with horrific and ceaseless violence somehow encapsulates the glory of a deity who would only otherwise reveal itself through the mouths and pens of men, then the greatest reduction of it’s message makes some sense to me; “I love you, so do what I tell you or I’ll kill you.”
I studied the bible extensively, and for my folly I became what I am. If my failure to consider myself substantiated by an unquestionable faith merits my destruction, I would anticipate relief in utter and complete conclusion. But I digress and should not engage in religious debate.
God… the great alchemical-king in the sky, making existence his canvas and the elements his multi-media brushstrokes.
.
My [above] premise echoes your inquiry, in that which came first, the creator or the proto-creation?
…or… is allone?
.
Manifesting a non-existing ‘thing’ doesn’t come with a blueprint -like a car or any other object would- so the fact that existence continually develops from pre-existing patterned states of reality, screams more ‘naturalism’ than ‘creationism’ to me… but that doesn’t mean that I am discounting interventionism, at some point in time.
You are really good at this, I envy your skill. Could you expound on this deistic designation? Is this one of many labels for an all-encompassing entity or something you see as more completely descriptive in it’s application?
Every innovation of man, as I see them, could be considered a tool. Some tangible device or intangible concept meant to shift an expected outcome from undesirable to something more desirable. But appeal is rarely automatic and natural, the utility of money requires some degree of education and reinforcing patterns to provide support for what is learned.
Was the unknowable origin so terrible as the accumulated impact of the tools of man? Is the statement “we are better off today than in the past” so certain? If the present course is approved by whatever deity would back up the “truths” presented by it’s adherents, it must be my failure to apprehend what glory is displayed.
On the contrary, it is nice to see some real thinking going on here. ILP needs more of that.
I agree about the notion of God, in terms of the perfected essence, infinitude and incomprehensibility, is certainly not universally appealing but it does seem to have a very wide appeal nonetheless. Those who find it unappealing may like to stop and ask themselves exactly why that is. Merely for the philosophical untenability of such notions, or are there also more emotions reasons?
What is funny and which this reminds me of is how Billy Carson pretty much demolished Wes in that ‘debate’, but everyone seems to think it was the other way around. Really interesting to see what half-intelligence passes off as its valuation and standards. Philosophy would be an entirely different matter, which I was glad at least one (well two, considering the host/moderator dude) of the debate members was bringing at least somewhat to the table.
But what constitutes worshipfulness? We have our own standards. Things like beauty, perfection, goodness, exceptionalism. How many people in the Bible does God kill? It’s beyond the ability to count. How many people did he allow to be killed or kidnapped or raped or put into slavery, children included, and the Bible (old testament anyway) just shrugs and goes “meh” about the whole thing? I remember getting back into my Christianity a couple of years ago, was excited to open up the Bible again and started reading a random section somewhere near the beginning… only to find it so disgusting and immoral that I felt sick and had to stop.
I suppose that’s on me to reconcile with my other thoughts and feelings on the issues. Which I constantly am attempting to do. Christianity or at least the idea of Jesus and what he stood for, as well as certain other noble things about the religion in general, compel a certain level of appreciation, respect and indeed reverence from me. But I am not naive or self-lying about the other parts. I just realize that Jesus never told people to form religions or any of that, and he didn’t exactly make excuses for the bad stuff in the past. He basically came to give a new start, tell people to chill the f out for once in their lives and just be cool. Also he yelled at the jewish elders which was pretty funny. No wonder they got him killed in the end.
I like the analogy with painting on a canvas. That is pretty cool. Maybe the canvas was already there, or is already a fundamental part of God’s nature, and he just decided one day to start creating artwork on it. And we are part of that artwork.
Natural laws and logic seem to unfold more or less automatically-deterministically, so what you say makes sense about continually developing patterned states. As long as the initial state was grounded, authentic, then further creation/unfolding could occur in line with all of that and not necessarily requiring near-infinite knowledge of all the particulars.
An excerpt from a parable of Jesus, Luke 19:27 (NIV): “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
Ahaha, fair enough. I also recall his statement about not coming to bring peace but to bring the sword. To set each against the others. And then the one time he impulsively killed a fig tree because it was too early in the season for figs which Louis CK made a pretty funny comedy bit about.
Was he comparing himself to that sort of king? Was he likening himself to that sort of king? Was he referring to the Jewish leaders he was taking to task?
Does the good shepherd just sort of say “There there, now, wolf…do your best to just be nice to my sheep”?
Among what you presented is the very same I mentioned to you, along with scriptures which seem to bear loose association with the topic at hand. What do you want? I don’t understand you at all.
which Louis CK made a pretty funny comedy bit about.
