What was the purpose of creation?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TerraLiga

To share the gift life, it is mind boggling, that God existed forever, before the creation of anything.

Think about this, lets say the universe is 15 billion years old, when the universe began a huge amount of energy was converted into matter, it looked liked a disorganized explosion from where we look, but that is all speculation and conjecture.

But there is this, before that epic moment in time, God was alone for infinity, you can pick any number and that would be true, so 900 Trillion years before that, God is all alone in a non-physical dimension where time doesn't even exist.
It's a difficult concept to wrap our human minds around.

But at some point God choose to share the gift of life that he had with other beings, some would be physical, others would be Non-Corporeal. For the physical he would need to create a physical plane for them to reside in, so In the Beginning.....

Also think about this, God actually creates time with his very first act of creation as it becomes the only reference point to start the clock.
And if you read the bible you know his first act of creation was not our universe, but a Non-corporeal being.

That's a cute story, but what evidence do you have for any single claim in this opinion piece of yours?

originally posted by: QwertyMyself
I like to think it was the equivalent of a Celestial "Hold my Beer" moment.

God just being God; to create life just because He can.

Then sit back and enjoy the show with a smile.

^_^

So, you're saying we are a joke or a desk toy? As a believer, how can you be happy that you exist for the entertainment of something else?

a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Astrophysics, chemistry, geology, anthropology and assorted related fields of study are the opposite of imagination.

I guess you don't understand monism. What exactly is astrophysics, chemistry, geology, anthropology studying? What are they observing and measuring? It has a name. You can call it the Universe but that is just another name for the One and only thing. This One and only thing is not a figment of the imagination, it is a thing that exists and can be measured and observed.

It's ironic because you are seemingly denying the existence of this One thing while simultaneously agreeing the study of its parts are the opposite of imagination. Astrophysics is to One as physiology is to man. But I don't think you'd find a physiologist that denies the existence of a human while simultaneously supporting the validity of their field of study.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The higher cognitive functions of human neurology are key in devising a language that translates everything I just mentioned into coherent symbology to better process raw data, aka abstract modeling. But if that modeling isn't strictly derived from raw data then it's hypothesis, speculation or plain bologna, sometimes useful in sci fi media that excites the imagination for the fun of it.

That means, according to you, everything is a hypothesis. That is because no one is working with raw data. They are working with their 5 senses which act like an adapter between the raw data of reality and the observer. These 5 limited and imperfect adapters inefficiently convert raw data from reality into electrical signals. The observer has a subjective opinion about those electrical signals, not an objective opinion of reality. Furthermore, that subjective opinion is based on the observer's limited perspective, knowledge, understanding, and ability to comprehend. In other words, everything originates from an interpretation and someone's imagination.

Since the observer's only connection to reality is through adapters that inefficiently convert reality into electrical signals, that means observers will only ever be able to observe things that can be represented by electrical signals. Although electrical signals can be utilized in many different ways to represent information, for example on or off, high voltage to low voltage, direct or alternating, negative or positive, frequency modulation, amplitude modulation, etc., it would be erroneous to conclude everything can be represented with a combination of those methods. Ultimately, it means observers and science will only ever observe a limited subset of raw reality. Even if they create devices that are able to detect more than their own 5 senses, those devices must convert to a format that can be interpreted by the 5 senses.

It would be a grievous mistake to restrain your knowledge and understanding to only things that can be represented by electrical signals. That is another way to say that observable and measurable is not a perfect and absolute source of knowledge and understanding. There is another source, and that is pure logic and reason. Although it too has its limitations and flaws it can be a useful source of helpful, meaningful, usable knowledge. After all, that is what remains if you remove the requirement of electrical signals from your 5 senses.

One last thing that is a bit off topic but it's important to mention. If all we ever experience are electrical signals then we can never be certain about the true source of those signals. For example, when you touch something you can't be certain the signal you got actually came from your fingers, through your hand, up your arm. In fact, you can't be certain you even have a body. All you can be certain of is that you got electrical signals. And, those signals are in a very specific format that gives your brain a reason to believe you have fingers, hands, and arms. Your brain likely created a model or representation of a body only to make sense of the electrical signals not because it's actually there. You can't even be certain the object you touched is solid (it's not). The electrical signals just led you to believe it is, and your mind modeled it to be so.

We can't be certain anything we observe and measure is real, only that something is sending and receiving signals that support the illusion of it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
"Woo woo" (such a fun word) forgets that sci fi is made to be played with like a game, and often talks about emotions and gratifying philosophies which exploit very particular convenient data to serve an agenda. Games are cool but facilitators in engineering have to keep a firm grasp on exactly where that line is between fun and results.

Speaking of games and facilitators in engineering, as a software engineer and computer scientist I find it interesting that to model the entire universe in an object oriented paradigm I would have to start with One base class. What should I call it?

Then, as I add the most logical primitive properties to that One base class I find it interesting that my creation logic closely resembles ancient Pythagorean writings about the beginning of the Monad and the Dyad, which gives rise to numbers, then points, then ultimately geometry, etc.

The entire process also closely matches a passage from the Daoist Laozi: "From the Dao comes one, from one comes two, from two comes three, and from three comes the ten thousand things".

In the end this One base class is going to have a definition that has an uncanny resemblance to God.

Fascinating.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1

In the end this One base class is going to have a definition that has an uncanny resemblance to God.

Which God? And according to whose definition?

a reply to: Kreeate

See Monsim and the various religions and belief systems that originate from it.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: Kreeate

See Monsim and the various religions and belief systems that originate from it.

So, any one of a number of gods then?

double

a reply to: Kreeate

A majority of major belief systems are either monotheistic and or pantheistic which stems from the belief of the existence of One true God. Many of which define God as being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscentient, etc. and that all things derived from God.

Some of the oldest religions are based on the concept that the universe itself is the body of God. The universe being something that actually exists, not something imagined. From that point of view the characteristics of God that are found in major religions can be derived logically.

Even Jesus said God is one, and Jesus is one with God. When he said, "Eat this bread for it is my flesh. Drink this wine for it is my blood." that was another way to say all matter and the universe is a part of God's body.

a reply to: Phantom423

It’s not the backwards way of thinking. It’s the basis of all religions. You are not supposed to love anything in this world, this is the devils world. Dying here is a good thing because of the reward of the afterlife in heaven. Everyone dies, so why would the timing matter? Your goal is heaven. That’s your endgame no matter when it happens.

a reply to: TerraLiga

No wisdom taught me and experience. Your children only think they know what love is. It would be like when people say that jail and prisons aren’t that bad but let them go experience them and then see what they say. Experiencing something makes all the difference in the world when it comes to understanding something COMPLETELY. You have no true idea or comprehension of understanding something until it’s a complete one. Your saying it like”Well I know a car needs an engine and gas to run so I understand everything needed to make a car run.” But if given all the parts to car and told to put it together you would say well I can’t do that. Because? You don’t have a complete understanding. Understanding one part doesn’t entitle an understanding of all the parts. Another example is telling your kids not to touch something cause it’s hot, they will say ok and will listen but they wont understand the degree of it until they experience a burn. Meaning they wont have a heightened awareness of avoiding something hot until they receive pain from it. Then they will make sure to keep their attention focused on something hot when around it.

a reply to: mcsnacks77

Again, I disagree. To know something you do not have to know the opposite too. To love you do not have to hate also. Perhaps experiencing opposites would help you appreciate, but not to know.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TerraLiga

To share the gift life, it is mind boggling, that God existed forever, before the creation of anything.

Think about this, lets say the universe is 15 billion years old, when the universe began a huge amount of energy was converted into matter, it looked liked a disorganized explosion from where we look, but that is all speculation and conjecture.

But there is this, before that epic moment in time, God was alone for infinity, you can pick any number and that would be true, so 900 Trillion years before that, God is all alone in a non-physical dimension where time doesn't even exist.
It's a difficult concept to wrap our human minds around.

But at some point God choose to share the gift of life that he had with other beings, some would be physical, others would be Non-Corporeal. For the physical he would need to create a physical plane for them to reside in, so In the Beginning.....

Also think about this, God actually creates time with his very first act of creation as it becomes the only reference point to start the clock.
And if you read the bible you know his first act of creation was not our universe, but a Non-corporeal being.

That's a cute story, but what evidence do you have for any single claim in this opinion piece of yours?

The bible and science

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

It would be a grievous mistake to restrain your knowledge and understanding to only things that can be represented by electrical signals. That is another way to say that observable and measurable is not a perfect and absolute source of knowledge and understanding. There is another source, and that is pure logic and reason. Although it too has its limitations and flaws it can be a useful source of helpful, meaningful, usable knowledge. After all, that is what remains if you remove the requirement of electrical signals from your 5 senses.

Classic epistemology, aka how to distinguish theory from fact. This is why we have tools and metrics to supplement Greek anecdotes that question the very idea of units and physical relationships. And yet you would shy from a rattlesnake and apply sunscreen before you go to the beach, because electrical signals are just noise and distraction from our true identity in a reality that is more sophisticated than chemicals or biology.

We can't be certain anything we observe and measure is real, only that something is sending and receiving signals that support the illusion of it.

Sure you can. Hydrogen atoms have one electron, a dime is worth ten pennies, a pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of steel, light is faster than sound, the earth is round and orbits the sun, lightning is a galvanic reaction and not an omen from Olympus. Your attempt to reduce math and physics to sensory illusion doesn't work like you describe.

In the end this One base class is going to have a definition that has an uncanny resemblance to God.

That depends on your definition of what is godly, which according to your previous argument, is entirely subjective. Either reality exists objectively, or doesn't.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
The bible and science

I admire your faith, I really do, and I respect your beliefs. God can't be questioned or provide any answers, it can't be called to account for its supposed actions or inactions and knowledge is total, fixed and immoveable.

Science, on the other hand, can provide answers and those answers are open to debate, revision or even wholesale rejection. The boundaries of knowledge are in constant flux. Complete branches of scientific knowledge are rewritten on occasion, due to new discoveries. This is a good thing.

Anyone can contribute to the pool of knowledge, as long as your theory is sound and can be tested and reproduced by your peers. There is nothing like this in religion, and especially in the fundamental branches of religions.

And no, I don't have faith in science. I have trust, in the method and the process.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

They say the Pythagorean came about around 1600 BC.
The only problem with that is the oldest and largest mound structure in the world built by Native Americans was built by using the Pythagorean theory. But how did they know and use it thousands of years before it was discovered? I’ve seen it and it’s pretty impressive considering they didn’t have charts or maps to go by and built it with primitive tools.

There is no beginning or end that can be determined or discernable creation is when people have made their own. In such doing in the subconscious as it is called? Erringly thinks there is one.

Ask anyone what is the first thing they did... and what will they say? Woke up, in whatever language that word is... and without prompt typically go about their whole day after that when that was not part of the question. The answer was woke up not the speil of usual habits and routine, that they leave out, but the adversity that they encountered ...dumping a clutter of emotions as a coping on someone else's ears and then rarely if ever retort the question. The subconscious in such people assume you meant what did you do today?

What did you do today,when it is all the things that they skipped that does them more benefit than the edversity and emotional coping or cluster of dumping on someone else? How could someone care? If they said woke up, emptied their bowels then made coffee? Then someone caring would know to avoid the bathroom when they wake up and make coffee while they are in there if and only if they cohabitate. Otherwise a gift in either of those two settings... believe it or not? Such a thing is a cure directly to them where they will not emotionally dump and use others as a coping mechanism for their emotions... they will start handling their emotions... complaining that someone is using the bathroom only creates another person that doesn't hear the first question.

Not wanting to make coffee for the bathroom hog and conflicts at the bathroom in the morning? Either get on a different schedule or cease cohabiting or try a different bathroom. Otherwise conflict results in those two people and the emotional cognitive dump spreads like a contagion as learned behavior; children often mimic or mirror the attitude not as a mockery but as kinship... fueling that however is not a good idea as they have their own path to get back on; otherwise that child becomes lost to their own work, business and play unfortunately those that do not guide the child back to their work business or play have picked up an alter ego and when that child goes back to work business or play the person being mimicked feels lost like a part of them is missing like a mirror that used to follow the around... some people see such a loss and say go see blah blah or be their mirror.

No is the best answer I have my own work business and play I don't want to ride the short bus interfering with their coping or lack thereof. Some people want those two to bond if the child says "no" accept that and leave them alone. They will never bond to that person and don't want to all it does is create an adversity and struggle over who is who; a niece used to call herself a robot go do this go get that before the mechanical era people thought of themselves as dogs playing fetch tired of the dogs company? They say go get familiar with someone like a cat.

OP you can answer your own question; in the reflection or meditation of: Why did I start this thread?

No one here at ATS nor anyone living or deceased can answer that for you.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: More1ThanAny1



Classic epistemology, aka how to distinguish theory from fact. This is why we have tools and metrics to supplement Greek anecdotes that question the very idea of units and physical relationships. And yet you would shy from a rattlesnake and apply sunscreen before you go to the beach, because electrical signals are just noise and distraction from our true identity in a reality that is more sophisticated than chemicals or biology.

By creating holistic process based sciences and integrating them skillfully as sum of part of the whole would not only greatly accelerate the scientific quest and discoveries of realization and actualization, it would rather, also ensure and safeguard proper scientific and technology exploration, development, and quest for the long term.
Only a person taught to fear a rattlesnake would shy away. And p**sies wear sunscreen. The sad thing is you have them backwards. You should shy away from sunscreen as they are now being shown to cause cancers. And I picked up literally hundreds of rattlesnakes and copperheads and have never been bitten or attacked by one.

a reply to: TerraLiga

There are some area's where science and creation from God meet.

Math is an example, do you really think the Fibonacci numbers created themselves or came into spontaneous existence without any intelligence whatsoever?



Sometimes called the fingerprint of God, like an artist signing on a majestic painting.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TerraLiga

There are some area's where science and creation from God meet.

Math is an example, do you really think the Fibonacci numbers created themselves or came into spontaneous existence without any intelligence whatsoever?

Sometimes called the fingerprint of God, like an artist signing on a majestic painting.

I've always thought it rather arrogant and self serving to discover a natural phenomenon and name it after yourself. But I digress.

The Fibonacci sequence is found in many organic natural places that it just mindlessly grew from millions of years before man invented written language, but we can't resist attributing it to an intelligent agency that coincidentally resembles ourselves. Did I mention arrogant and self serving?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

The Fibonacci sequence is found in many organic natural places that it just mindlessly grew from millions of years before man invented written language

The phi ratio is an irrational number, meaning there are an infinite number of non-repeating decimal sequences. To plead that such mathematical enormity came by random chance is very, very unlikely.

Did I mention arrogant and self serving?

Better than hopeless and self-loathing