The Infinitely lazy God?

[firstfloor]

If things must be created and if God is the creator of things and He is a thing then He also was created and His creator was created, and so on. In Religio-think the infinite regression is avoided by supposing that God is timeless or outside time or has existed forever or something of that sort. The details are never explained and you are just supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the person saying such a thing knows something that you don’t. But let’s suppose that there was God-time before He made the world and God inhabited that ‘space’ for all possible God-times. If that space is not infinite then God is not infinite and He must have been created. If that space is infinite then God is infinitely lazy. OR, this world and you in particular is the infinitely least important thing on His agenda.

What I notice about the world is that God, at the very best, is not a hard worker. [Christians will excuse infinite God-idleness] What are we supposed to be praising Him for exactly?

[MaxVel]

If things must be created and if God is the creator of things and He is a thing then He also was created and His creator was created, and so on. In Religio-think the infinite regression is avoided by supposing that God is timeless or outside time or has existed forever or something of that sort. The details are never explained and you are just supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the person saying such a thing knows something that you don’t.

Ignorant drivel. Go and read Aquinas, or Feser, or Bill Vallicella....

But let’s suppose that there was God-time before He made the world and God inhabited that ‘space’ for all possible God-times. If that space is not infinite then God is not infinite and He must have been created. If that space is infinite then God is infinitely lazy. OR, this world and you in particular is the infinitely least important thing on His agenda.

What I notice about the world is that God, at the very best, is not a hard worker. [Christians will excuse infinite God-idleness] What are we supposed to be praising Him for exactly?

Are you alive?

[firstfloor]

Are you alive?

Should the work of my hands bless me for having worked it? No! The satisfaction for the work I do or its appreciation by others is unidirectional. That is the correct relationship of the worker to his work, between the artist and his art or between God and His creation. A focus on one’s creator is a distraction from the thing for which you were created. [Assuming that we were, in fact, created by God].

"If one holds, as D. M. Armstrong does, that reality is exhausted by the space-time system, then it follows straightaway that there is no God as Dale and I are using 'God.'" - Bill Vallicella [who thinks there is an ‘absolute’ existence beyond what is obvious but like all mystics he has absolutely no idea what it is.] He dreams of knowing the unseen order, he has mystical experiences but he does not understand himself. And he does not appreciate the power of science to get to grips with his quest – just not in his toolbox. And if you don’t use the correct tools you will not find the answers. He thinks spiritual development is important – actually, it is the wrong path to understanding [if you are interested in truth as he claims] and this has been proved many times. Vallicella worships ignorance.

[shunyadragon]

Are you alive?

If this is the best you have to offer, your God is in trouble. Most people in the world live, die and suffer in poor situations and circumstances they have no control over. Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.

[firstfloor]

Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.

What, would you say, is it that the Mystic searches for? I had not heard of Bill Vallicella until now. Thanks to MaxVel for that.

Suppose some group comes upon a locked door. They wonder what is behind it and eventually somebody paints ‘The Throne Room’ on it. Now, whenever someone new encounters the door they begin to imagine the splendid décor, the King sitting on his throne surrounded by his many attendants and courtiers busily dealing with the affairs of a great state, etc.

Are we in need of some paint stripper?

[shunyadragon]

What, would you say, is it that the Mystic searches for?

If you search for something you will find nothing . . .

I had not heard of Bill Vallicella until now. Thanks to MaxVel for that.

Heard of him, read some, but not maverick enough for me.

Suppose some group comes upon a locked door. They wonder what is behind it and eventually somebody paints ‘The Throne Room’ on it. Now, whenever someone new encounters the door they begin to imagine the splendid décor, the King sitting on his throne surrounded by his many attendants and courtiers busily dealing with the affairs of a great state, etc.

If there was no religion, they would find a door and worship it.

I am an theist, at present a Baha'i with Buddhist leanings and everything is in pencil. I believes in a universal apophatic Source some call God(s). I will rag on all old world God(s) based on an egocentric ancient view, particularly those that believe in the King in the sky with his court. Actually, I am a skeptic of all world views including my own.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces,
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

Are we in need of some paint stripper?

Interesting thought!

[Darth Ovious]

If this is the best you have to offer, your God is in trouble. Most people in the world live, die and suffer in poor situations and circumstances they have no control over. Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.

Three core principles establish a basis for Bahá'í teachings and doctrine: the unity of God, that there is only one God who is the source of all creation; the unity of religion, that all major religions have the same spiritual source and come from the same God; and the unity of humanity, that all humans have been created equal and that diversity of race and culture are seen as worthy of appreciation and acceptance.[2] According to the Bahá'í Faith's teachings, the human purpose is to learn to know and to love God through such methods as prayer, reflection and being of service to humanity.

[shunyadragon]

True, but not the point!

If there was no religion, they would find a door and worship it.

I am an theist, at present a Baha'i with Buddhist leanings and everything is in pencil. I believes in a universal apophatic Source some call God(s). I will rag on all old world God(s) based on an egocentric ancient view, particularly those that believe in the King in the sky with his court. Actually, I am a skeptic of all world views including my own.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces,
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

[firstfloor]

God is the sea and we are the fishes.

Ah! But you forgot to be apophatic.
You probably know this one.

"We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being." - Johannes Scotus Eriugena

[Darth Ovious]

True, but not the point!

If there was no religion, they would find a door and worship it.

I am an theist, at present a Baha'i with Buddhist leanings and everything is in pencil. I believes in a universal apophatic Source some call God(s). I will rag on all old world God(s) based on an egocentric ancient view, particularly those that believe in the King in the sky with his court. Actually, I am a skeptic of all world views including my own.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces,
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

But you actually agree with Maxvel on this one point. God is to be worshiped because you are alive and he is the creator. That's all I'm pointing out. I would have thought that this is a topic you would want to defend but obviously from your Baha'i faith point of view. However you say that Maxvel's position is weak albeit it should also be your own position.

[shunyadragon]

But you actually agree with Maxvel on this one point. God is to be worshiped because you are alive and he is the creator. That's all I'm pointing out. I would have thought that this is a topic you would want to defend but obviously from your Baha'i faith point of view. However you say that Maxvel's position is weak albeit it should also be your own position.

Like seer, my agreement with Maxvel ends in the view that we are all theists.

You do not get anywhere in a dialogue with accusations of 'Ignorant drivel,' when your own argument is logically egocentric and weak.

In reality it is worse then weak to justify the existence of God, because we are alive. The appeal to the universal in the Baha'i view in response to simplistic egocentric views and individual ancient world views is the heart of my arguments over time. The mindless simplistic vindictive attacks on atheism fail miserable. I have debated atheists in the past beyond simplistic confrontations and name calling exercises. I do not agree with atheists, but based on the evidence they have a better argument rom the universal perspective than individual egocentric theistic ancient worldviews that do not address the universal in time and space.

If you wish to read more on my world view as a Baha'i see the appropriate thread.

[MaxVel]

If this is the best you have to offer, your God is in trouble. Most people in the world live, die and suffer in poor situations and circumstances they have no control over. Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.

Did I say that was the only reason to worship God?

What naivety you show to think that anything we could say, do, think or believe would somehow put God in trouble. You rail against 'egocentric old world views' of God, yet you yourself insist on clinging to them, and projecting your stale view of God onto others beliefs. The God I believe in is far beyond your pettiness. You claim to be a skeptic, but you won't let God choose how He reveals Himself. You put God in your box, and won't allow Him to come up close and personal with you - you hold Him away, at arm's length. A remote, impersonal, 'incomprehensible' God is more comfortable and convenient for you - He can't make claims on your life and lifestyle. Why aren't you skeptical of that view of God, too?


You need to read Aquinas, and modern presentations of his arguments, too. See the Fifth Way, and God as pure act - and what follows from that about God's nature.

[Darth Ovious]

Like seer, my agreement with Maxvel ends in the view that we are all theists.

You do not get anywhere in a dialogue with accusations of 'Ignorant drivel,' when your own argument is logically egocentric and weak.

Context is important. Firstfloor asked a question which pre-supposed the existence of God to begin with and Maxvel answered it. Maxvel wasn't making an argument for the existence of God in the first place.

But let’s suppose that there was God-time before He made the world and God inhabited that ‘space’ for all possible God-times. If that space is not infinite then God is not infinite and He must have been created. If that space is infinite then God is infinitely lazy. OR, this world and you in particular is the infinitely least important thing on His agenda.

What I notice about the world is that God, at the very best, is not a hard worker. [Christians will excuse infinite God-idleness] What are we supposed to be praising Him for exactly?

Are you alive?

In reality it is worse then weak to justify the existence of God, because we are alive.

As shown above that's not what Maxvel was doing.

The appeal to the universal in the Baha'i view in response to simplistic egocentric views and individual ancient world views is the heart of my arguments over time. The mindless simplistic vindictive attacks on atheism fail miserable. I have debated atheists in the past beyond simplistic confrontations and name calling exercises. I do not agree with atheists, but based on the evidence they have a better argument rom the universal perspective than individual egocentric theistic ancient worldviews that do not address the universal in time and space.

If you wish to read more on my world view as a Baha'i see the appropriate thread.

Quick question, why are you a member of the Baha'i faith and not an atheist? As long as I can remember you always defend the atheist positions over theistic ones. Even above you defend first floor over something that Maxvel didn't do.

[shunyadragon]

You need to read Aquinas, and modern presentations of his arguments, too. See the Fifth Way, and God as pure act - and what follows from that about God's nature.

Aquinas does not represent modern arguments for the existence of God. I consider them too anthropomorphic and self justified arguments and mostly too circular assuming God exists in the beginning.

[Darth Ovious]

Aquinas does not represent modern arguments for the existence of God. I consider them too anthropomorphic and self justified arguments and mostly too circular assuming God exists in the beginning.

The Bahá'í writings describe a single, personal, inaccessible, omniscient, omnipresent, imperishable, and almighty God who is the creator of all things in the universe.[11] The existence of God and the universe is thought to be eternal, without a beginning or end. [12] Though inaccessible directly, God is nevertheless seen as conscious of creation, with a will and purpose that is expressed through messengers termed Manifestations of God.[13][14]