Well perhaps that is just a play with words since people like to apply good to god. But in my opinion being god would seem to be a lonely and miserable existence. Nothing else could relate to you. You couldn't be surprised by anything. The awe of anything wouldn't have awe. There would be nothing by which to place value upon your existence. Nothing you would miss. Nothing you would seek. Nothing you would cherish. No one to share your existence with.

I'm sorry, we're arguing a hypothetical situation whereby a God DOES exists, and considering what its purpose is.

Now I'm sorry if I've fallen into societal concept of humanizing God, but being in a culture which constantly depicts God as a he, it's the term I most naturally slip into when talking about a God. If it really bugs you I shall refer to God as it.

Just because I have a certain cultural image of what a God looks in my head, does it mean I believe in a God?

Your argument is weird.

It's like you saying that I like to eat strawberries just because I think they are red in color.

no, i meant the same thing you are saying.

but we can never know what it is to be a bat, right? i think sometimes i would rather be a chipmunk, but they have a rotten life surely-or do they? would they trade with us if they could?

so if we cant know what it is like to be the creatures we live with, how can we even guess what it might be like to be a god? we can only guess what it would be like for a human being to be a god...and i agree it sounds horrible.

__________________
"The idea is to die young as late as possible."....Ashley Montagu

You are right Sal, I can only speculate from my own perspective. There could be a constant state of bliss where all those things I mentioned would be considered meaningless.

Since we are not aware of other beings experiences we can assume it to be harsh or pleasant. But would a god have such a lack of knowledge? Wouldn't a god be able to know a beings experience? Perhaps a god wanted to create an idealistic existence seeing a lack of knowing would be more appealing than all knowing. Would that god be envious of that existence?

i think a god would be all knowing about his own creation at least at first. but it may evolve and surprise him. consider dr frankenstein in the lab and what he got out of his creation. maybe it could be like that for a god.

i dont see why he couldnt create something that would surprise him-i know i have done or thought up things that surprise me sometimes!

so i dont think he would need to envy anything because he could have it whatever way he wanted to...then again that in itself kind of takes away the point of doing it, at least for me. i would hope a god would be able to figure out some way of getting around being bored...

__________________
"The idea is to die young as late as possible."....Ashley Montagu

Krumple,

I don't think you and I can interact on this topic any more.

You seem to want some absolute concrete certainty that nobody can provide.

I'm sorry to tell you that matters of spirituality are not subject to absolutist interpretations of reality. They simply are not. They are based on belief.

I have never stated on this website that anything I said is absolute truth; on the contrary, I've stated my beliefs.

Belief is not a statement of ultimate, absolute relaity. It is merely a statemnt of belief.

If you are incapable of distinguishing between these two principles, then perhaps it is better that we don't converse.

-ITL-

Nope, it is not about being absolute or having absolute because there is nothing absolute, at least none that I have ever seen. So why would I ask for an absolute answer? Perhaps the only thing absolute is that there are no absolutes.

And belief can be subject to rational thought. I mean if your belief in god is on par with the belief in an invisible friend, then can't you ask the question are they in fact the same thing? If they are not, then why not?

Oh but they affect your reality, they persuade influence or dictate your behavior. So they have a relevance when it comes to interaction with others. I am not saying with you personally but others will impose those beliefs onto others to insist they behave similarly.

Well I'm pretty sure what absolute is, and I personally don't even think we are absolute. So why would I expect it from anything else?

Krumple,

I can't give you want you want.

-ITL-

"To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm?"( Ayn Rand)

Through religion, mystics introduce a supernatural realm. However, it is established on a false metaphysical foundation. Any doctine based on a fantastical abstraction refutes the axiom existence exists. Existence is primary. From unicellular organisms to a spiral galaxy, every existent has a particular indentity. An entity cannot exist without an identity. Without identity, an entity loses existence. It becomes nothing. Mystics purport inevitably that god is without identity, or at least, an identity unintelligible to human beings. Mystics leave the realm of reason when they predicate a "higher dimension," independent of our natural world.

Reason is absolute. All knowledge, barring a posteriori, is derived from reason and logic. By postulation a supernatural being transcendent of human knowledge, or worse, our capacity for knowledge, they enter into speculation, and throw away all reason. Reason is our tool only tool to understand reality, by accepting mysticism, you damn reason. This is not a question that is answerable. Purpose is secondary existence is primary. If god's existence is independent of empirical knowledge, so too is his purpose. The question posed seems to be a critique on religion.

__________________
"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

God is the product of hierarchy.

__________________
And he said: "It's a strange game. The only winning move is not to play."