Is God proud of His work?

[Greatest I am]

Is God proud of His work?
You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment that he need’s render.
Genesis 1:31 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=31&version=9&context=verse)
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
This very good included all that is, including sin, evil and the woes that were to afflict us, without which we could not develop our moral sense.
To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

Deuteronomy 32:4 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=32&verse=4&version=9&context=verse)
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
I know that many think of Genesis as the fall of man. This is false.
Man came out of Genesis only after the development of the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil.
God wanted man to have a moral sense and insured that this would happen by making sure that the talking snake/Satan was there to draw Eve out of any lethargy or laziness of mind and would be lead in the right direction.
I take the advice of the Pope and read the Bible allegorically and see Genesis as a right of passage for all humans from a state of innocence in the home/garden to a search for moral values in the greater society/talking snake.
It is this same society, with it’s differing values that hone our moral sense. It also draws us to sin. As God wants.
Why does God want us to sin?
2 Peter 3:9 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&verse=9&version=9&context=verse) KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

New Jerusalem
9 The Lord (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217) is not being slow in carrying out his promises, as some people think he is; rather is he being patient with you, wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance.
If we must all come to repentance then clearly we must all sin.
God makes this easy by creating us all with a sinning nature.
It is God’s will that all repent and none be lost and it must be so, if God’s will is supreme.
To think otherwise is to think that God’s will can be thwarted.
If it is then it is not God’s will at all.
So to those who await a second or third judgment from God, forget that silly notion.
He told us it was a good beginning and from good beginnings come good endings.
We are all to be saved which ends the notion of a hell. If you think about hell for just a moment, it is clear from a moral standpoint, that God would not ever invent or create such a place. It would be admitting that He has failed in saving all of us. This is against His will and must be a false interpretation of scripture.

Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?

Regards
DL

[RandFan]

To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.He sure did a lousy job of getting it right. I'm sure the parents that lost a child wouldn't really care to think of that as "right" or "perfect".

You have a very twisted sense of right. But then you have the luxury to think that.

[madurobob]

I'm not sure he would agree with you. Didn't this guy pass a whole lot of other judgments AFTER Genesis 1:31?

Anyway, in answer to your question: Mu

[RandFan]

You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time...We can agree on that. Given that there is zero evidence of god there certainly is no reason to speculate his return.

This is against His will and must be a false interpretation of scripture. Before we can divine the correct interpretation we need to determine if it is true or not. We can quibble about the interpretation of Harry Potter but to what end?

[RandFan]

I'm not sure he would agree with you. Didn't this guy pass a whole lot of other judgments AFTER Genesis 1:31?

Anyway, in answer to your question: MuHappy B-day dude.

[madurobob]

Happy B-day dude.

Thanks!

[HansMustermann]

Is God proud of His work?

[...]

Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?

For a start, I'm an atheist, but just to play the devil's advocate:

It seems to me like you've shifted the goalposts a _lot_ between the two quoted sentences. There is a major difference between being proud of something and it being _perfect_. You also seem to introduce the false dichotomy of it either being perfect or being something worthy of _shame_. Which is missing a lot of the shades of grey in between.

1. You _can_ be proud of something without considering it perfect. I'm proud of a lot of my achievements in life, although I don't consider them to be perfect. Parents are proud of their children, but virtually none of them consider that child to be _perfect_. (You wouldn't need to keep telling him/her what to do, if he/she were already perfect.) Etc.

2. A guy can also change his mind. And the supposed God already did that more than once, probably the most abrupt being the new covenant. It doesn't necessarily mean that the old situation was flawed or shameful. That was damn good for what he wanted back then, and this is damn good for the ideas he has right now.

Even the creation in Genesis indicates basically just such a change of ideas. An eternal god was there just doing nothing (that matters to us) and suddenly he gets the idea to create Earth. That's a change right there.

I see no reason why a god couldn't change his mind again in the future.

3. He also _reacted_ to changes in his creation more than once. E.g., that's what the flood was: the whole thing had evolved into something he hadn't foreseen and intended, so he wipes it all out and starts again. E.g., the tower of Babel incident: God obviously had thought that one language is enough in the beginning, but then he sees what's happening and decides to make languages diverge, as a way to fix an unforeseen problem that had appeared.

None of those would be needed if the world had been perfect and made to stay perfect for ever. Each of those times, the world or a part of it, basically had changed into something that God isn't quite as proud of any more.

And way I see it, a possible interpretation of Revelations is just that: God foresees that at the given course of humanity, eventually it will break down to something out of control and unmanageable. So he has a plan B for when that happens.

[realpaladin]

Is God proud of His work?
You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment that he need’s render.
Genesis 1:31 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=31&version=9&context=verse)
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
This very good included all that is, including sin, evil and the woes that were to afflict us, without which we could not develop our moral sense.
To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

Deuteronomy 32:4 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=32&verse=4&version=9&context=verse)
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
I know that many think of Genesis as the fall of man. This is false.
Man came out of Genesis only after the development of the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil.
God wanted man to have a moral sense and insured that this would happen by making sure that the talking snake/Satan was there to draw Eve out of any lethargy or laziness of mind and would be lead in the right direction.
I take the advice of the Pope and read the Bible allegorically and see Genesis as a right of passage for all humans from a state of innocence in the home/garden to a search for moral values in the greater society/talking snake.
It is this same society, with it’s differing values that hone our moral sense. It also draws us to sin. As God wants.
Why does God want us to sin?
2 Peter 3:9 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&verse=9&version=9&context=verse) KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

New Jerusalem
9 The Lord (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217) is not being slow in carrying out his promises, as some people think he is; rather is he being patient with you, wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance.
If we must all come to repentance then clearly we must all sin.
God makes this easy by creating us all with a sinning nature.
It is God’s will that all repent and none be lost and it must be so, if God’s will is supreme.
To think otherwise is to think that God’s will can be thwarted.
If it is then it is not God’s will at all.
So to those who await a second or third judgment from God, forget that silly notion.
He told us it was a good beginning and from good beginnings come good endings.
We are all to be saved which ends the notion of a hell. If you think about hell for just a moment, it is clear from a moral standpoint, that God would not ever invent or create such a place. It would be admitting that He has failed in saving all of us. This is against His will and must be a false interpretation of scripture.

Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?

Regards
DL



God did and does NOT EXIST!

[Fnord]

Is God proud of His work?
.
Why ask us? Ask Him ... and let us know what answer He gives.

[Safe-Keeper]

To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. Great Flood.
Jesus.
Armageddon.

He's sure as hell intervening a lot, and drastically, for someone who's perfectly happy with his flawless creation.

[paximperium]

Is Frodo proud of destroying the one true Ring?

[maddog]

Assuming that there is a god, then any intervention on his part would be "fixing", wouldn't it? Or would he be intervening in order to f*** it up even worse?

Since believers generally believe that god has and does intervene, I guess they would say that god did NOT make the world perfectly, and is trying to fix it. -- heh heh, wrap your arms around that one!

On the other hand, non-believers would say that there is no god to have intervened in any way, therefore the universe ("the creation", if there is a god who created it, and the non-believers are wrong) is either already perfect or is beyond repair.

[RandFan]

Hit and run thread?

[autumn1971]

"Is God proud of his work?"

He didn't do anything.

[Vic Vega]

Is Frodo proud of destroying the one true Ring?


After the friggin' trip he took?!?!?!?!

I would hope so...

[six7s]

Is God proud of His work?Perhaps... if he/she/it was more than merely a superstitious mythological character...

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. ... if he/she/it was more than merely a superstitious mythological character with such low standards

[KingMerv00]

.
Why ask us? Ask Him ... and let us know what answer He gives.

Apparently his answer is "No comment."

[HansMustermann]

Hit and run thread?

Ssshh. He's about to come back and tell us how he actually doesn't believe in the Bible's god, he contacted the universe's consciousness by telepathy, and he uses Bible quotes... umm... someone help me here... to prove that the Bible says something that nobody else ever understood it as. You may think it's about a God and his specific cosmology, and his Son dying on the cross, and his plan to end the world someday and replace it with Earth 3.1 for Workgroups, etc. But it's really about a cosmic consciousness which did everything differently than in the Bible, and got it right the first time ;)

That or it's what you get when New Age woowooists bait the Christians. I'm not entirely sure which.

Oh, and this forum is apparently only for religious people, and you're stupid and a disgrace to atheists if you take part in it.

That's why I'm on the side of the Bible here... Oh, crap... Now I remember I was supposed to be Asatro in his threads so I'm not stupid and a disgrace to atheists ;)

Right, soo... the Christian "God" can't have possibly have made made the universe, perfectly or otherwise. Because the universe was created when the flames of Muspelheim met the frost of Niflheim over the void abyss that was the Ginnungagap, and the giant Ymir and the cow Auðumbla were created out of that mix. Am I not stupid yet? ;)

[ExMinister]

Is God proud of His work?
You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment that he need’s render. Genesis 1:31 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=31&version=9&context=verse)
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
This very good included all that is, including sin, evil and the woes that were to afflict us, without which we could not develop our moral sense.
To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

Deuteronomy 32:4 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=32&verse=4&version=9&context=verse)
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
I know that many think of Genesis as the fall of man. This is false.
Man came out of Genesis only after the development of the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil.
God wanted man to have a moral sense and insured that this would happen by making sure that the talking snake/Satan was there to draw Eve out of any lethargy or laziness of mind and would be lead in the right direction.
I take the advice of the Pope and read the Bible allegorically and see Genesis as a right of passage for all humans from a state of innocence in the home/garden to a search for moral values in the greater society/talking snake.
It is this same society, with it’s differing values that hone our moral sense. It also draws us to sin. As God wants.
Why does God want us to sin?
2 Peter 3:9 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&verse=9&version=9&context=verse) KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

New Jerusalem
9 The Lord (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217) is not being slow in carrying out his promises, as some people think he is; rather is he being patient with you, wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance.
If we must all come to repentance then clearly we must all sin.
God makes this easy by creating us all with a sinning nature.
It is God’s will that all repent and none be lost and it must be so, if God’s will is supreme.
To think otherwise is to think that God’s will can be thwarted.
If it is then it is not God’s will at all.
So to those who await a second or third judgment from God, forget that silly notion.
He told us it was a good beginning and from good beginnings come good endings.
We are all to be saved which ends the notion of a hell. If you think about hell for just a moment, it is clear from a moral standpoint, that God would not ever invent or create such a place. It would be admitting that He has failed in saving all of us. This is against His will and must be a false interpretation of scripture.

Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?

Regards
DL



Genesis 6:5-7 - And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart. So the Lord said, I will destroy men whom I have created from the face of the earth; both men and animals, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; I am sorry that I have made them.

[Doc Daneeka]

Genesis 6:5-7 - And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart. So the Lord said, I will destroy men whom I have created from the face of the earth; both men and animals, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; I am sorry that I have made them.

Always fun to see scripture that clearly show a supposedly omniscient god making a mistake.

[AkuManiMani]

Is Frodo proud of destroying the one true Ring?

Hard to tell. He seemed pretty shell shocked after the whole affair :covereyes

[Greatest I am]

He sure did a lousy job of getting it right. I'm sure the parents that lost a child wouldn't really care to think of that as "right" or "perfect".

You have a very twisted sense of right. But then you have the luxury to think that.

We have always had woes here. We all suffer some way or another. This does not take away the overall perfection of evolution and our place in it.
All are subject to the vagaries of chance.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

We can agree on that. Given that there is zero evidence of god there certainly is no reason to speculate his return.

Before we can divine the correct interpretation we need to determine if it is true or not. We can quibble about the interpretation of Harry Potter but to what end?

I do not believe in the Bible God either but if there were a miracle working God, what does logic say to you? Would he appear a loser or a winner?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

For a start, I'm an atheist, but just to play the devil's advocate:

It seems to me like you've shifted the goalposts a _lot_ between the two quoted sentences. There is a major difference between being proud of something and it being _perfect_. You also seem to introduce the false dichotomy of it either being perfect or being something worthy of _shame_. Which is missing a lot of the shades of grey in between.

1. You _can_ be proud of something without considering it perfect. I'm proud of a lot of my achievements in life, although I don't consider them to be perfect. Parents are proud of their children, but virtually none of them consider that child to be _perfect_. (You wouldn't need to keep telling him/her what to do, if he/she were already perfect.) Etc.

2. A guy can also change his mind. And the supposed God already did that more than once, probably the most abrupt being the new covenant. It doesn't necessarily mean that the old situation was flawed or shameful. That was damn good for what he wanted back then, and this is damn good for the ideas he has right now.

Even the creation in Genesis indicates basically just such a change of ideas. An eternal god was there just doing nothing (that matters to us) and suddenly he gets the idea to create Earth. That's a change right there.

I see no reason why a god couldn't change his mind again in the future.

3. He also _reacted_ to changes in his creation more than once. E.g., that's what the flood was: the whole thing had evolved into something he hadn't foreseen and intended, so he wipes it all out and starts again. E.g., the tower of Babel incident: God obviously had thought that one language is enough in the beginning, but then he sees what's happening and decides to make languages diverge, as a way to fix an unforeseen problem that had appeared.

None of those would be needed if the world had been perfect and made to stay perfect for ever. Each of those times, the world or a part of it, basically had changed into something that God isn't quite as proud of any more.

And way I see it, a possible interpretation of Revelations is just that: God foresees that at the given course of humanity, eventually it will break down to something out of control and unmanageable. So he has a plan B for when that happens.

Thanks for that.
I use the words perfection in evolution for what you say God did when He went from being alone and started creating. Scripture says He is perfect and to maintain that perfection over time i say perfection in evolution.
Somewhat like the U S --a more perfect union.

The Christian way of seeing God is to see Him screwing up heaven with evil.
Strike one.
They then see God screwing up man's beginning in Eden.
Strike two.
They then see God cleaning house in Noah's day with Genocide and starting over.
Strike three.
They now wait for His return at end time to clean house yet again.
Strike four.
Strike four?
God plays by His own rules I guess.
You and I both know that this view must be false if there is a miracle working God.
God gets things right the first time and every time.
This is why He has not and will not return. His perfect systems are here today the same way that they were here in the beginning. It is just to us to see it. I do. Even with sin and evil and woes, all is perfect and humming along exactly as God wants it to. I call it perfection in evolution.

Regards
DL

[RandFan]

Hey DL,

I told you what logic tells me. But I guess the OP lead me to the wrong conclusion. Sorry.

[Greatest I am]

God did and does NOT EXIST!

If that is the miracle working super God, I agree.

Try using the word evolution where you see God in the OP and you will see that then things are perfection in evolution.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

.
Why ask us? Ask Him ... and let us know what answer He gives.

Before I found the Godhead, I had to figure out that all was indeed as perfect here as it could be. He confirmed it.

I cannot prove and I do not believe in miracles but I do recognize the perfection of the evolutionary systems that we live and thrive in.

Regards
DL

[godless dave]

If that is the miracle working super God, I agree.

Try using the word evolution where you see God in the OP and you will see that then things are perfection in evolution.


Evolution is not capable of being "proud" of anything.

[Greatest I am]

Great Flood.
Jesus.
Armageddon.

He's sure as hell intervening a lot, and drastically, for someone who's perfectly happy with his flawless creation.

To read the Bible literally is silly. It is full of myth and legends and we no longer know how to glean the message that the writers wanted to convey. Even the lat two Popes said it is all allegory.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Assuming that there is a god, then any intervention on his part would be "fixing", wouldn't it? Or would he be intervening in order to f*** it up even worse?

Since believers generally believe that god has and does intervene, I guess they would say that god did NOT make the world perfectly, and is trying to fix it. -- heh heh, wrap your arms around that one!

On the other hand, non-believers would say that there is no god to have intervened in any way, therefore the universe ("the creation", if there is a god who created it, and the non-believers are wrong) is either already perfect or is beyond repair.

I vote for perfect and believers who see a killer God are wrong.
An absentee God cannot interfere.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Hit and run thread?

Patience is good.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

"Is God proud of his work?"

He didn't do anything.

You are likely right but should leave un-provable statements for believers to make about their God.

Skeptics know that negatives such as yours sentence are impossible to prove. Try not to sound like a believer.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Apparently his answer is "No comment."

No, He said that all is perfect but it was not a miracle that developed it, it was evolution.

Regards
DL

[Ron_Tomkins]

Is God proud of His work?

You could just ask him, you know

[Greatest I am]

Genesis 6:5-7 - And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart. So the Lord said, I will destroy men whom I have created from the face of the earth; both men and animals, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; I am sorry that I have made them.

So much for omnipotent.

Quite the myth eh.

It would possibly have some truth if God had not killed the animals.

He, to Christians, can justify killing humans but they have a harder time justifying the slaughter of animals. Go figure.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Evolution is not capable of being "proud" of anything.

This is true but it can be a perfect system over time.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You could just ask him, you know

I did. No one will believe that I got an answer.

Regards
DL

[Ron_Tomkins]

I did. No one will believe that I got an answer.

Regards
DL

I believe you. But, would you believe that I spoke with Fulkur, the Luckdragon last night and that we took a ride along the clouds?

[Greatest I am]

I believe you. But, would you believe that I spoke with Fulkur, the Luckdragon last night and that we took a ride along the clouds?

No. That would exceed the laws of physics.
Telepathy does not.

Regards
DL

[wuschel]

Is God proud of His work?In fact: Yes, I am! Now carry on with whatever you mortals usually do when not blaspheming by questioning me!

[Elizabeth I]

No. That would exceed the laws of physics.
Telepathy does not.

Oh, please, please, please, do tell us which laws of physics govern telepathy.

And if it is subject to the laws of physics, why isn't is repeatable?

[ExMinister]

So much for omnipotent.

Quite the myth eh.

It would possibly have some truth if God had not killed the animals.

He, to Christians, can justify killing humans but they have a harder time justifying the slaughter of animals. Go figure.

Regards
DL


In the OP you said, "He gets things right the first time." I was responding to that. If he got things right the first time, why the need for the flood?

[autumn1971]

No, He said that all is perfect but it was not a miracle that developed it, it was evolution.

Regards
DL
Okay, I'm sorry, I assumed that this thread was attempting to make some Abrahmic theological point. I see that it is actually one of those "god is revealed by the universe around us, but not in such a way that anyone not specially initiated can see it" solipsisms.
The universe exists in a way that can be explained by materialistic ideas, but it is the perfect plan of the godhead that set it going in this way-- ergo, the universe is perfect in spite of its imperfections.

The long version of "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual".

I'm not lying, but you've found a really interesting way to introduce an unneccessary variable.

[HansMustermann]

No. That would exceed the laws of physics.
Telepathy does not.

So it also obeys the speed of light limit from General Relativity? When you communicated with that universe consciousness, assuming that it was as close as the centre of our own galaxy, did you wait a hundred thousand years for the message to go to it and back?

[maddog]

Is God proud of his work?

Actually no. He hates his job and wants to quit, but he hasn't gotten another job yet, and can't afford to be out of work. But, he's starting computer training in the fall.

[Greatest I am]

In fact: Yes, I am! Now carry on with whatever you mortals usually do when not blaspheming by questioning me!

Hard to know your philosophy without questions.

Does that mean that there is no hell?

Regards
DL

[HansMustermann]

Is God proud of his work?

Actually no. He hates his job and wants to quit, but he hasn't gotten another job yet, and can't afford to be out of work. But, he's starting computer training in the fall.

Rofl. Well played :p

[wuschel]

Hard to know your philosophy without questions.
I cannot be comprehended by mortals. End of story.
Does that mean that there is no hell?
You're toast, for even trying!

[ExMinister]

Is God proud of his work?

Actually no. He hates his job and wants to quit, but he hasn't gotten another job yet, and can't afford to be out of work. But, he's starting computer training in the fall.

If we're talking about the god of Genesis, he told his first creations that they would die if they listened to the snake. Didn't happen. He managed to spin it so that Eve was to blame when he was the one who planted the naughty tree in the garden in the first place, and in spite of the bluster and blame-shifting, managed to keep his humans worshipful. I'd think he'd lean more toward law school. Or politics. :)

[Aurelian]

I thought "pride" was one of the seven mortal/deadly sins....what was the question in the title again?

A.

[DC]

First its up to God to prove he did create the Universe.

and you cannot just change God with Evolution, because Evolution is not something that can be proud or so, it is a process of try and fail.
i dont know exactlly what is perfect about the Universe. Alsong we are living here in a pretty quite region of the milkyway it may look perfect but in other regions where galaxys colide it isnt so perfect anymore.

But should it be created by something that can be proud, he/she should be proud, pretty impressive, not the human race, but the galaxy, but calling it perfect? allmighty ego?

[Greatest I am]

Oh, please, please, please, do tell us which laws of physics govern telepathy.

And if it is subject to the laws of physics, why isn't is repeatable?

I see telepathy as just another form of radio waves. Normal once understood.

It may be repeatable for some but not for me it seems.
I do not have the emotion or the desire to --hit-- anyone anymore.
Without strong emotion or desire, telepathy is not activated.
Telepathy is invasive by it's nature. Man may have a built in repulsion of seeing the good and evil that is in all our hearts and minds.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

In the OP you said, "He gets things right the first time." I was responding to that. If he got things right the first time, why the need for the flood?

As I stated, it is a myth. Why are myths created? I don't know.
They may have begun as oral history of local conditions.

Regards
DL

[Paulhoff]

I see telepathy as just another form of radio waves.

Regards DL
No, it isn't...........

Paul

:) :) :)

[HansMustermann]

I see telepathy as just another form of radio waves. Normal once understood.

It may be repeatable for some but not for me it seems.
I do not have the emotion or the desire to --hit-- anyone anymore.
Without strong emotion or desire, telepathy is not activated.
Telepathy is invasive by it's nature. Man may have a built in repulsion of seeing the good and evil that is in all our hearts and minds.

Regards
DL

Well, that's a good start towards approaching it scientifically. Because we're good at detecting or blocking radio waves, and we have a lot of idea by now about their behaviour.

So... would they get blocked when you're in a metal container? (E.g., a submarine.) What frequency should we be looking for, and how come the whole radio spectrum used around doesn't scramble it, or it doesn't scramble radio transmissions?

Do they get atenuated with the square of the distance? If not, they're not acting like radio waves at all, and if yes, then the power needed to communicate with something hundreds of thousands of lightyears away... how didn't it zap the conductors that are your nerves? Where did you get those terawatts from, anyway? Human metabolism doesn't even start to cover that.

And since radio waves by definition travel at the speed of light, again, how many years did you wait for a reply from that cosmic consciousness?

[Greatest I am]

Okay, I'm sorry, I assumed that this thread was attempting to make some Abrahmic theological point. I see that it is actually one of those "god is revealed by the universe around us, but not in such a way that anyone not specially initiated can see it" solipsisms.
The universe exists in a way that can be explained by materialistic ideas, but it is the perfect plan of the godhead that set it going in this way-- ergo, the universe is perfect in spite of its imperfections.

The long version of "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual".

I'm not lying, but you've found a really interesting way to introduce an unneccessary variable.

I do not give some God credit for us being here. I give that to evolution.
If there ever was some miracle working God then for all we can see and know, He was absorbed or killed by the big bang.

Evolution is the perfect system we are left with.
It and we are always the best that nature can produce and are therefore as perfect as is possible.

This cannot be denied I think.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

So it also obeys the speed of light limit from General Relativity? When you communicated with that universe consciousness, assuming that it was as close as the centre of our own galaxy, did you wait a hundred thousand years for the message to go to it and back?

If it is our natural next evolutionary step, why would you think it would be far away?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I thought "pride" was one of the seven mortal/deadly sins....what was the question in the title again?

A.

God does not think in degrees apparently. Turn from sin or burn.
Man does and can think in degrees.
To me, it would be more of a sin and a shame for you and I not to take pride in our children, our homes, our spouses, parents
accomplishments, etc.
The pride you speak of is the puffed up head type of pride. If not a sin, that one is annoying.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

First its up to God to prove he did create the Universe.

and you cannot just change God with Evolution, because Evolution is not something that can be proud or so, it is a process of try and fail.
i dont know exactlly what is perfect about the Universe. Alsong we are living here in a pretty quite region of the milkyway it may look perfect but in other regions where galaxys colide it isnt so perfect anymore.

But should it be created by something that can be proud, he/she should be proud, pretty impressive, not the human race, but the galaxy, but calling it perfect? allmighty ego?

Now why in the whole universe would a God, if He existed, be proud of all the universe except for one little planet like earth.

What makes you think that God, if there is one, or evolution, if it could think, are not perfect, and would not be proud of it?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, it isn't...........

Paul

:) :) :)

Thanks for enlightening us.
Then what is it?
I know your answer, imagination. No reply required.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Well, that's a good start towards approaching it scientifically. Because we're good at detecting or blocking radio waves, and we have a lot of idea by now about their behaviour.

So... would they get blocked when you're in a metal container? (E.g., a submarine.) What frequency should we be looking for, and how come the whole radio spectrum used around doesn't scramble it, or it doesn't scramble radio transmissions?

Do they get atenuated with the square of the distance? If not, they're not acting like radio waves at all, and if yes, then the power needed to communicate with something hundreds of thousands of lightyears away... how didn't it zap the conductors that are your nerves? Where did you get those terawatts from, anyway? Human metabolism doesn't even start to cover that.

And since radio waves by definition travel at the speed of light, again, how many years did you wait for a reply from that cosmic consciousness?

I spoke to distance elsewhere and as to the rest, I have no idea.
We do know that machines can detect our brainwaves. This means that the mind is sending out waves. It should be a small step then to put meaning or thoughts within those waves.

Regards
DL

[realpaladin]

God does not exist GIA.

[Greatest I am]

God does not exist GIA.

You have proof of this do you?
Let's see it.
I imagine you have even less proof of your statement than believers have for theirs that God does exist.

I guess that makes your statement even more foolish than theirs.

Regards
DL

[HansMustermann]

I spoke to distance elsewhere and as to the rest, I have no idea.
We do know that machines can detect our brainwaves. This means that the mind is sending out waves. It should be a small step then to put meaning or thoughts within those waves.

Regards
DL

Yes and no. The brain doesn't work by electromagnetism at a distance, it works by electrical currents and chemical synapses. Yes, like any current it does produce some electromagnetic waves, but they're very very very very weak. An EEG works by electrical contact, not by detecting your infinitesimal electromagnetic field.

[realpaladin]

You have proof of this do you?
Let's see it.
I imagine you have even less proof of your statement than believers have for theirs that God does exist.

I guess that makes your statement even more foolish than theirs.

Regards
DL

I have proof; through no thing and no activity anywhere is his existence confirmed.

Your turn.

[Greatest I am]

Yes and no. The brain doesn't work by electromagnetism at a distance, it works by electrical currents and chemical synapses. Yes, like any current it does produce some electromagnetic waves, but they're very very very very weak. An EEG works by electrical contact, not by detecting your infinitesimal electromagnetic field.

It is not my fault that science is not up to that task of making a receiver as sensitive as the brain to incoming waves.

Perhaps biological minds are just that much better than -mechanical- ones for this purpose.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I have proof; through no thing and no activity anywhere is his existence confirmed.

Your turn.

You have looked in all the known universe have you?
If not, the proof might be there.

Regards
DL

[realpaladin]

You have looked in all the known universe have you?
If not, the proof might be there.

Regards
DL

Yup, I have. No God.

Your turn.

[Beerina]

2 Peter 3:9 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&verse=9&version=9&context=verse) KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.




repentance: n A type of prayer, but biting your cheeks to keep a straight face. E.g.

fINh4SsOyBw

[Greatest I am]

HansMustermann (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=30642)

You may know physics better than I.

If I send even a weak signal on a radio wave, unless it hits something solid, I believe that although weak or weakening, that wave will continue forever. Is this right.

I thought that when people speak of aliens, they say that at some point in time, the Lucy show will be their first taste of man.

Regards
DL

[HansMustermann]

It is not my fault that science is not up to that task of making a receiver as sensitive as the brain to incoming waves.

Perhaps biological minds are just that much better than -mechanical- ones for this purpose.

Regards
DL

Actually, that's just the thing. There is no evidence that the brain picks such waves at all. It's trivial to make a tunable emiter that pumps out waves in the same spectrum that gets registered on EEGs. See if you can even tell if it's on or off, in a double blind test. Your neurons don't pick jack squat in that spectrum.

In fact, I can't speak for Randi, of course, but I'm thinking that if you can tell whether a 1W very low frequency emitter is on or off, you might be able to convince him to have a go at his million.

Basically, try it. You have nothing to lose, and at the very least you'd get a _lot_ of fame if you were the first one to prove telepathy scientifically. Heck, even just proving that you can pick weak radio signals with your brain, would probably make you the spokesman and poster child for the electrosensitivity crowd.

[Greatest I am]

repentance: n A type of prayer, but biting your cheeks to keep a straight face. E.g.

fINh4SsOyBw

I like it too.

Regards
DL

[realpaladin]

No comeback to that, GIA?

RealPaladin vs GIA: 1 - 0

Play again?

[HansMustermann]

HansMustermann (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=30642)

You may know physics better than I.

If I send even a weak signal on a radio wave, unless it hits something solid, I believe that although weak or weakening, that wave will continue forever. Is this right.

I thought that when people speak of aliens, they say that at some point in time, the Lucy show will be their first taste of man.

Regards
DL

Well, the answer is: sorta, in a vacuum, but otherwise it gets slightly more complex.

For a start very low frequencies (like those your brain emits) would be reflected by the Earth's ionosphere right back. That's how beyond-the-horizon radar works. It bounces the waves off the ionosphere.

Very high frequencies start getting absorbed by air. (Which is why we don't get fried by the Sun's far stronger UV and X ray emission than gets to the ground.) Which is just as well, because you'd give yourself brain cancer if your emission was in the UV or above band ;)

With the distance, well, yes and no. It keeps going on for ever, that much is true, but it also gets atenuated with the square of the distance. Something that's, say 1W per square metre at 1m distance, would get to be only a micro-watt per square metre at 1km, and then only a millionth of a millionth of a watt per square metre at 1000 km, and then only a billionth of a billionth at a million kilometres, and so on.

At some point it gets weaker than the background noise, so it becomes useless. And if nothing else, when it gets to be just one photon in a blue moon, your chances of getting much of that signal are pretty much nil.

[Greatest I am]

Actually, that's just the thing. There is no evidence that the brain picks such waves at all. It's trivial to make a tunable emiter that pumps out waves in the same spectrum that gets registered on EEGs. See if you can even tell if it's on or off, in a double blind test. Your neurons don't pick jack squat in that spectrum.

In fact, I can't speak for Randi, of course, but I'm thinking that if you can tell whether a 1W very low frequency emitter is on or off, you might be able to convince him to have a go at his million.

Basically, try it. You have nothing to lose, and at the very least you'd get a _lot_ of fame if you were the first one to prove telepathy scientifically. Heck, even just proving that you can pick weak radio signals with your brain, would probably make you the spokesman and poster child for the electrosensitivity crowd.

If I ever get such an emitter I can test myself to see if it works. If it does then we will see.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Well, the answer is: sorta, in a vacuum, but otherwise it gets slightly more complex.

For a start very low frequencies (like those your brain emits) would be reflected by the Earth's ionosphere right back. That's how beyond-the-horizon radar works. It bounces the waves off the ionosphere.

Very high frequencies start getting absorbed by air. (Which is why we don't get fried by the Sun's far stronger UV and X ray emission than gets to the ground.) Which is just as well, because you'd give yourself brain cancer if your emission was in the UV or above band ;)

With the distance, well, yes and no. It keeps going on for ever, that much is true, but it also gets atenuated with the square of the distance. Something that's, say 1W per square metre at 1m distance, would get to be only a micro-watt per square metre at 1km, and then only a millionth of a millionth of a watt per square metre at 1000 km, and then only a billionth of a billionth at a million kilometres, and so on.

At some point it gets weaker than the background noise, so it becomes useless. And if nothing else, when it gets to be just one photon in a blue moon, your chances of getting much of that signal are pretty much nil.

Thanks for this.
Then I would say that the cosmic consciousness is close by if not somehow existing within our atmosphere.

I can picture how these waves could be around us as loose waves, so to speak, but for those to group up, to retain their consciousness within the cosmic group or greater whole that is the Godhead, is beyond what I can picture.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No comeback to that, GIA?

RealPaladin vs GIA: 1 - 0

Play again?

I am quite willing to discuss issues. I have no time for games.

Regards
DL

[realpaladin]

Thanks for this.
Then I would say that the cosmic consciousness is close by if not somehow existing within our atmosphere.

I can picture how these waves could be around us as loose waves, so to speak, but for those to group up, to retain their consciousness within the cosmic group or greater whole that is the Godhead, is beyond what I can picture.

Regards
DL

Round 2.

There is no Godhead nor is there a cosmic consciousness.

[dlorde]

Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?Surely a perfect work (whatever that may be), by definition has nothing to fix? If it's perfect, it's what was intended - which thoroughly undermines the notions of both god and perfection...

[realpaladin]

I am quite willing to discuss issues. I have no time for games.

Regards
DL

You failed to refute me. Either you are playing evasion games, or you are wrong.

[realpaladin]

Thanks for this.
Then I would say that the cosmic consciousness is close by if not somehow existing within our atmosphere.

I can picture how these waves could be around us as loose waves, so to speak, but for those to group up, to retain their consciousness within the cosmic group or greater whole that is the Godhead, is beyond what I can picture.

Regards
DL

Funnily enough, this corroborates my first proof that there is no God.

[Paulhoff]

Thanks for enlightening us.
Then what is it?
I know your answer, imagination. No reply required.

Regards
DL
What in the brain will pick it up, and what in the brain will send it out.

Paul

:) :) :)

[HansMustermann]

Thanks for this.
Then I would say that the cosmic consciousness is close by if not somehow existing within our atmosphere.

I can picture how these waves could be around us as loose waves, so to speak, but for those to group up, to retain their consciousness within the cosmic group or greater whole that is the Godhead, is beyond what I can picture.

Regards
DL

Erm, no. Not really. Those waves aren't also a signal processor, and don't have any consciousness or anything on their own. It's just like shouting "GERONIMO!!" on a mountain top. The sound wave doesn't carry consciousness or anything, it's just a dumb signal that propagates and atenuates and bounces into some stuff along the way, but nothing more.

I.e., _if_ there is some big consciousness (and I still don't believe in one, but have nothing against helping you search for one either), it would have to be something else than just waves bouncing around and getting atenuated beyond any use within milliseconds. It would have to be something which can actually process those signals one way or another.

[Greatest I am]

Surely a perfect work (whatever that may be), by definition has nothing to fix? If it's perfect, it's what was intended - which thoroughly undermines the notions of both god and perfection...

That is what I keep telling believers after quoting this

Deuteronomy 32:4 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=32&verse=4&version=9&context=verse)
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

They then just come back and say that the perfect souls that God creates all turn bad.

I do the perfection flows from perfection thing and the imperfection flows from imperfection thing but they just do not get it and continue to wait for the end time.

I just hate to just tell them they are being stupid and pig headed without myself being able to come up with a better way of showing them that their logic and or thinking is wrong.

I can understand that sheeple are not to think of things and just follow but how they can be logical in one area and completely blind and illogical in the other is beyond my psychological knowledge to dither out.

I will bow to any that can come up with another logical way of expressing the fact that you and I undestand so easily.
A perfect works does not need fixing and cannot become imperfect.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

What in the brain will pick it up, and what in the brain will send it out.

Paul

:) :) :)

I have no idea. Probably the same mechanisms that make what shows up on an EEG.

It does it on it's own.
I did not tell my brain to activate a subroutine, if it has any, it just did it.

Regards
DL

[dlorde]

I just hate to just tell them they are being stupid and pig headed without myself being able to come up with a better way of showing them that their logic and or thinking is wrong.Yeah, doncha hate it when that happens?

I can understand that sheeple are not to think of things and just follow but how they can be logical in one area and completely blind and illogical in the other is beyond my psychological knowledge to dither out.It's called being human. Some people believe in god and still think they're eminently logical people. As the White Queen said about believing the impossible, in Through The Looking Glass:

`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!'

[realpaladin]

That is what I keep telling believers after quoting this

Deuteronomy 32:4 (http://forums.randi.org/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=32&verse=4&version=9&context=verse)

<snip>

I will bow to any that can come up with another logical way of expressing the fact that you and I undestand so easily.
A perfect works does not need fixing and cannot become imperfect.


Perfection does not exist.

Bow to me.

[Greatest I am]

Erm, no. Not really. Those waves aren't also a signal processor, and don't have any consciousness or anything on their own. It's just like shouting "GERONIMO!!" on a mountain top. The sound wave doesn't carry consciousness or anything, it's just a dumb signal that propagates and atenuates and bounces into some stuff along the way, but nothing more.

I.e., _if_ there is some big consciousness (and I still don't believe in one, but have nothing against helping you search for one either), it would have to be something else than just waves bouncing around and getting atenuated beyond any use within milliseconds. It would have to be something which can actually process those signals one way or another.

I agree.

I can picture human to human mental interaction because the brains are there to receive and interpret the information signals, but how the Godhead can --stick together--without some --brain-- keeping it all together is, as I say, beyond my understanding of physics and I do not like or want to just say it is a miracle because I do not believe that those exist.

This is as far as I have gotten in explaining telepathy.
I am stumped.

Regards
DL

[Fnord]

Is God proud of His work?
Why ask us? Ask Him ... and let us know what answer He gives.
Apparently his answer is "No comment."
.
Apparently, you're just not on His "Friends" list!

;)

[HansMustermann]

I agree.

I can picture human to human mental interaction because the brains are there to receive and interpret the information signals, but how the Godhead can --stick together--without some --brain-- keeping it all together is, as I say, beyond my understanding of physics and I do not like or want to just say it is a miracle because I do not believe that those exist.

This is as far as I have gotten in explaining telepathy.
I am stumped.

Regards
DL

My advice would be: baby steps. Rome wasn't built in a day. Start with hypotheses you _can_ test, then after those are tested, start the next step from there.

Basically you don't have to start directly with finding your telepathic AM-Radio god.

You have a hypothesis that it's radio waves. That's quite testable. See if it is indeed so. If not, there's no point in going further down that line at all.

_If_ you find that it's radio waves, well, find the frequencies and modulation and whatnot. That would be a great step forward by itself, _if_ it works.

_If_ you manage even that, now the search for that AM-Radio god becomes a lot easier. Because you know what signals to look for, and building a giant antena is trivial once you know the frequency. Then you use triangulation to see where the answer is coming from.

Mind you, I still don't believe you'll get past step 1 because others tried and didn't. But in the end it's not about belief, it's about applying the proper scientific method. If you think you're on to something, by all means, go ahead and test it. That's what Galileo did too, after all.

[Greatest I am]

My advice would be: baby steps. Rome wasn't built in a day. Start with hypotheses you _can_ test, then after those are tested, start the next step from there.

Basically you don't have to start directly with finding your telepathic AM-Radio god.

You have a hypothesis that it's radio waves. That's quite testable. See if it is indeed so. If not, there's no point in going further down that line at all.

_If_ you find that it's radio waves, well, find the frequencies and modulation and whatnot. That would be a great step forward by itself, _if_ it works.

_If_ you manage even that, now the search for that AM-Radio god becomes a lot easier. Because you know what signals to look for, and building a giant antena is trivial once you know the frequency. Then you use triangulation to see where the answer is coming from.

Mind you, I still don't believe you'll get past step 1 because others tried and didn't. But in the end it's not about belief, it's about applying the proper scientific method. If you think you're on to something, by all means, go ahead and test it. That's what Galileo did too, after all.

Thanks for this.

Unfortunately the means and expertise are not at my disposal. Even with the millions that governments are presently putting into mental feed back system for pilots, their success is spotty and illusive.
It is an interesting study though but much of what they find is still classified. I will just have to wait.

Regards
DL

[Ron_Tomkins]

No. That would exceed the laws of physics.
Telepathy does not.

Regards
DL

Me thinks you don't have a very clear idea of what does "exceeding the laws of physics" mean
Telepathy would

And either way, if you don't want to believe my story then I don't see any reason I should believe yours

[Paulhoff]

I have no idea. Probably the same mechanisms that make what shows up on an EEG.

It does it on it's own.
I did not tell my brain to activate a subroutine, if it has any, it just did it.

Regards
DL
No, nothing in the brain works that way, so there is no ESP. Every sense has an input and a place to be processed n the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

By the way, the brain, you, same same.

[realpaladin]

I did. No one will believe that I got an answer.

Regards
DL

What did he say?

[DC]

Now why in the whole universe would a God, if He existed, be proud of all the universe except for one little planet like earth.

What makes you think that God, if there is one, or evolution, if it could think, are not perfect, and would not be proud of it?

Regards
DL

what i ment is, the human race alone isnt really something to be proud, but the universe as a whole is indeed impressive.

what does make the Universe perfect in your eyes?

and evolution cannot think, it is not a person.

dont confuse science with woo.