God vs Big Brother: Is There a Difference?

  • Thread starter Iacchus32
  • Start date
In summary: The ONLY problem with the education system is the fact that we are still trying to work out all the BS religous habits that have been enforced for so long. Although religion and government are supposed to be separate, they are not. If the government was so pro science anti-religion as you make them out to be, then we'd all have clones running around doing our work for us so that we could sit around and watch Court TV. If you think they are seperate, next time your in a court room, take a look at the lil black book you have to swear on.
  • #36
The only problem with this, is that if God were a "good scientist," He would also believe in cause and effect, in which case He would have to allow things to "run their course." Whereby things become established and spread out (like the Church) and, to the degree that "new things" (experiences) are encountered, then it evolves. And, to the degree that it evolves, then a diversity is established, by which an eco-system is created and maintained. So it seems you have to have a little bit of everything, both good and bad, in order to provide the "possibility" of free choice.
Hmm... no. Let's say god exists. If he exists, he would have created science itself. He would have defined cause and effect, and have no reason to obey it. It would not be a matter of belief at all, but knowledge of his creation. And God cannot be a scientist, as by definition, he knows everything already. Rather, existing outside time, there are no new things for him, but what he allows to create by his will.
Have to is not a valid statement. Unless for some reason he constrains himself to produce evil, and made the laws of cause and effect etc while intentionally denying himself the knowledge of what will happen, this argument does not apply. There is no reason to respect the law of cause and effect, when that law has not even been created. So, god is willfully ignorant.

Now, if he is willfully ignorant, why does he wish to observe the outcome at all? In which case we get the conclusion he wishes for people to burn in hell.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by megashawn
What does that have to do with anything you have in quotations. I made no mention of god being a scientist at all. In fact, I made my quoted assumption based on things the bible tells us about god, like, he loves everyone, is all powerfull. Do you say these things are not true?
It's a logical conclusion (or assumption), that in order for God and Science to exist at the same time, God has to be scientifically predisposed, or else how do you explain the theory of evolution? The only reason why I put it into quotes was to emphasize this point.

So why can't God be both rational (objective, like a scientist) and caring (subjective) at the same time? Otherwise it would be like trying to explain reality without using both sides of your brain, in which case it wouldn't exist (as normal). Much in the way a schism exists between science and religion today: where science assumes the "rational side," and attempts to exclude religion, the "emotional side," and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... no. Let's say god exists. If he exists, he would have created science itself. He would have defined cause and effect, and have no reason to obey it. It would not be a matter of belief at all, but knowledge of his creation. And God cannot be a scientist, as by definition, he knows everything already. Rather, existing outside time, there are no new things for him, but what he allows to create by his will.
I think it's more important to "experience" the creation of God, and if that means experiencing Him through science, then more power to you ... This makes more sense rather than argue over an arbitrary label that's used mainly to describe the experience.


Have to is not a valid statement. Unless for some reason he constrains himself to produce evil, and made the laws of cause and effect etc while intentionally denying himself the knowledge of what will happen, this argument does not apply. There is no reason to respect the law of cause and effect, when that law has not even been created. So, god is willfully ignorant.
When you understand something well enough then "have to's" and "must's" do become part of the equation. Just as if you say, 1 + 1 "must" equal 2. There's no other way around it. (That would be an absolute definition there by the way.) If in fact God were neutral, like we were speaking about in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1524&perpage=15&pagenumber=2", then yes, that does allow for things to happen as a result of cause and effect.

Whereas in His infinite amount of wisdom, it's very possible that He could have set things up in a way to achieve a certain result, thus allowing for the possibility of "redemption," no matter what circumstances you're from. Isn't it possible for science to set up experiments in the same way, in order to achieve certain results?


Now, if he is willfully ignorant, why does he wish to observe the outcome at all? In which case we get the conclusion he wishes for people to burn in hell.
Do I think God is willfully ignorant? No. Do I think God cares? Yes. If He doesn't, then why should we?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Do I think God cares? Yes. If He doesn't, then why should we?

If he does care, then why will he allow a person who cannot justify believing a person died and was brought back to life days later without a single shred of true, physical proof, to suffer eternally?

When it is something as simple as revealing the proof.

If god does truly care, then there is not a heaven or hell, merely afterlife. For any decent person would never inflict life long suffering upon another decent being. If god is not atleast this good, I'll have no part.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by megashawn
If god does truly care, then there is not a heaven or hell, merely afterlife. For any decent person would never inflict life long suffering upon another decent being. If god is not atleast this good, I'll have no part.
The thing of it is is that you have to separate people according to what they believe, otherwise there would be nothing but constant antagonism in the afterlife, in which case it's necessary for hell to exist if only for this reason. Whereas everyone comes into what's called their "ruling love" (that which they love most), which is what guides them and detemines their state of existence in the afterlife.

While it's for this reason that both heaven and hell are very diversified (more than you can imagine), in order to accommodate the myriad of distinctions to be made here. So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1072" ...

"Man after death is his own love or his own will.

This has been proved to me by manifold experience. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his like, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves." ~ http://www.swedenborg.com/" , Heaven and Hell
This is a very good book by the way, and it's highly recommended.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by FZ+
So is free will then possible without evil?
No. It may appear that way in a "heavenly sense." But there still exists a "dynamicism" between heaven and hell. It would be more like two polarities of a battery, by which an "equilibrium" is established in the middle, so long as the polarities don't touch and get "shorted out," otherwise that would be the end of everything.

Or, to the extent that "the load" (i.e., "natural world") draws too much current from the battery, and lowers the overall voltage, then to that extent the differences (distance) between heaven and hell become less perceptible.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by FZ+
So it is possible to be evil in heaven?
Do you know anything about transistor theory. It is possible to get a transistor to oscillate at either polarity of the battery (or power source). And yet, it depends on this difference "in potential" in order for it to operate. Therefore it could operate within the parameters of the "apparent good" (positve range) or, within the parameters of the "apparent bad" (negative range).

Therefore evil has to exist in either sense in order to allow for the transistor to oscillate: i.e., the oscillation pertaining to "our lives."

As far as outright evil being permitted in heaven, typically no, although it is allowed at times for the evil to be taken up into heaven, in order to demonstrate the nature of their evil, so that they no longer desire to go to heaven (and create disturbances). Also at times spirits do "slip up," and are let down into their "own hells" so to speak, until they learn from what they did wrong.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by FZ+
So the citizens of Heaven are not free.
A + B = C
They are free to "oscillate" in accordance with "their beliefs."

Whereas they either have the predisposition towards heaven or they don't. If they do, then they receive all they ever wanted in a heavenly sense, and if they don't, then they receive all they ever wanted in a hellish sense. If that doesn't sound like freedom, then I don't know what does? Of course it's all predicated upon their life in the world, which as I understand, can't be changed once you pass on.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by FZ+
But you also said that free will is impossible when you are just oscillating between good and good. Which gives immediately the idea that free will does not exist in heaven, at least in terms of the free will we have today.
No, it's not an oscillation between good and good. It's an oscillation between a higher potential of good and a lower potential of good. In which case the internal junctions of the transistor still experience this same oscillation between good and evil (positive and negative), just at a higher level than the transistor which has its polarities reversed.


So tell me, if God desires free will so much for us on Earth that he created evil to allow for it, why does he deny this free will from those in heaven, whom he presumeably found most desirable? Why must heaven be filled with sycophants?
No, we're either elevated in consciousness or we're lowered in consciousness, to the level where we tend to "oscillate" the best. A sycophant would be equivalent to a transistor which is always in a "state of on," and doesn't oscillate, and would be of no use to further the "dynamics of God."

While I understand the angels of heaven alternate between periods of standing within the presence of God (a little over simplified), and falling back on their "own proprium" (self-will or love), at which point they long to return to standing within His presence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1897&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by heusdens
Does Donald Duck exist?

if one asks a biologist wether a duck that can talk exists, he will certainly not affirm that. So a talking duck does not exist?

I think it is meaningfull to say, that Donald Duck exists in the category of the mind, and not as a material entity.

To leave out this distinction, and call everything "existence" is not a workable concept.
So why are we given the ability to reason by abstraction? If not for the sake of reasoning out that which is most abstract of all? Of course that would imply a sense of purpose now wouldn't it? And perhaps a Creator who stands behind it? ...
Originally posted by heusdens
An abstract entity which is a product of our abstract reasoning, and exist only in our minds, for sure...
Does this mean I'm delusional, because I use the same abstract process as everyone else to "validate" my own experiences?

With whom do you think the burden of proof lies anyway? Is it up to you to get me to accept what you're saying without question? If so, then how could I ever acknowledge the truth of anything? While the same holds true for you or anyone else. You see, this is the only possibly way you can accept the idea of God, because when you get right down to it, it's the only possible way you can accept anything, Period.

Perhaps this is why it's necessary for determinism to step into the picture, to coerce us into believing we don't have a free will, so we won't open up our minds "freely" and accept the fact that God exists. In other words it's just a means by which to enforce the status quo.

You're not by any chance a Communist are you?

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free ..."
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1911&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

Originally posted by heusdens
Originally posted by pelastration
The question "God ... to define is to destroy" has two "human" aspects: a social impact (if we can give a final definition or image or formula of God ... will it destroy religious institutions - like churches, sekts, ..), and the personal impact (how will individuals react on that"knowledge").
Actually the latter one, to replace the religious beliefs in deities, the only attempt made succesfull, is to have people scientifically educated.

To overcome all forms of superstition, religion, ignorance and stubbornness, we must therefore provide well founded scientific education for the masses.

And we better take care here, that the science education budgets are increasing to fulfill that goal, instead of decreasing (as they have in many industrial nations; for instance the science/education budget in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2002 were alsmost cut in half!)
This is nothing more than deterministic brainwashing ... Isn't this what freedom of religion is all about, to allow us to make up our own minds?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
While it's for this reason that both heaven and hell are very diversified (more than you can imagine), in order to accommodate the myriad of distinctions to be made here. So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.
What about those people (like me) who find happiness in other people, from whom they enjoy the diversity of the experience and desires? A division of mankind will never make everybody happy. It would make us all lonely and miserable. Change is an element of human happiness.
 
  • #43
...So in this respect everybody finds their own bliss, even for those who are in hell who, as I understand (although rather sado-masochistic in nature), wouldn't have it any other way. This is the only way you can make "everybody" happy.
"Now, if anything at all can be known to be wrong, it seems to me to be unshakably certain that it would be wrong to make any sentient being suffer eternally for any offence whatever."
Antony Flew, "The Presumption of Atheism", God, Freedom, and Immortality
 
  • #44
Originally posted by FZ+
What about those people (like me) who find happiness in other people, from whom they enjoy the diversity of the experience and desires? A division of mankind will never make everybody happy. It would make us all lonely and miserable. Change is an element of human happiness.
Really, it isn't anything more than coming into the sense of feeling where you belong. And if in fact you desire change and the diversity of experience, then you will no doubt find yourself in a position where you can experience this sense of "unbound learning."
 
  • #45
Originally posted by BoulderHead
"Now, if anything at all can be known to be wrong, it seems to me to be unshakably certain that it would be wrong to make any sentient being suffer eternally for any offence whatever."
Antony Flew, "The Presumption of Atheism", God, Freedom, and Immortality
As I understand it, we all hold the keys to our own confinement, even in hell.
 
  • #46
What if I desire other people, but other people do not desire me?
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Iacchus32
As I understand it, we all hold the keys to our own confinement, even in hell.
I have seen many ways to negate the obvious injustice involved in eternal damnation. I think it best that we treat our rationalizations with suspicion.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by FZ+
What if I desire other people, but other people do not desire me?
I think the most important thing is to learn to love yourself. And then what you do attract, is that which is most compatible with yourself. And even if you don't find somebody "compatible" in this life (as a mate?), so long as you are happy with yourself, chances are you will find that somebody in the next life.

If on the other hand you are lonely and miserable (which isn't to say things can't get better), then you will most likely find others like yourself to console you in your "self pity" -- i.e., and feel sorry for each other.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by BoulderHead
I have seen many ways to negate the obvious injustice involved in eternal damnation. I think it best that we treat our rationalizations with suspicion.
And yet all I'm saying is people are in hell because they prefer to be there out of choice. If they aren't accepted in heaven it's only because they have unresolved issues which they "won't resolve." Why else do we send people to prison, if not for the same reason?
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet all I'm saying is people are in hell because they prefer to be there out of choice. If they aren't accepted in heaven it's only because they have unresolved issues which they "won't resolve."
Yes, which is your particular way of rationalizing the injustice involved in this matter...

...Why else do we send people to prison, if not for the same reason?
Yes, but not everyone is a 'lifer' in our system.
 
  • #51
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Yes, but not everyone is a 'lifer' in our system.
In which case, unless they are totally incorrigible, they will be given a reprieve.


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1072&perpage=15&pagenumber=1" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by FZ+
So it is possible to be evil in heaven?
Do you know anything about transistor theory. It is possible to get a transistor to oscillate at either polarity of the battery (or power source). And yet, it depends on this difference "in potential" in order for it to operate. Therefore it could operate within the parameters of the "apparent good" (positve range) or, within the parameters of the "apparent bad" (negative range).

Therefore evil has to exist in either sense in order to allow for the transistor to oscillate: i.e., the oscillation pertaining to "our lives."

As far as outright evil being permitted in heaven, typically no, although it is allowed at times for the evil to be taken up into heaven, in order to demonstrate the nature of their evil, so that they no longer desire to go to heaven (and create disturbances). Also at times spirits do "slip up," and are let down into their "own hells" so to speak, until they learn from what they did wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
Originally posted by Iacchus32
In which case, unless they are totally incorrigible, they will be given a reprieve.
This would all be good and fine if either you were the great judge in the sky, or if the great judge in the sky held these views. In either case I can see no reason why it might be worthwhile for me to believe it true in this life. Surely, if I find myself in another state of existence after my physical body dies then, assuming I will have recollection of this existence, I will be a much wiser being. Such knowledge will make it possible for me to consider many things that I find improbable in this life-cycle.
 
  • #53
Originally posted by BoulderHead
This would all be good and fine if either you were the great judge in the sky, or if the great judge in the sky held these views. In either case I can see no reason why it might be worthwhile for me to believe it true in this life. Surely, if I find myself in another state of existence after my physical body dies then, assuming I will have recollection of this existence, I will be a much wiser being. Such knowledge will make it possible for me to consider many things that I find improbable in this life-cycle.
These are cleary matters which are supposed to be taught by the church, which apparently it doesn't do a very good job of. While it's also a matter of one's intentions that determines whether this has any relevance to one's life or not.
 
  • #54
I think the most important thing is to learn to love yourself. And then what you do attract, is that which is most compatible with yourself. And even if you don't find somebody "compatible" in this life (as a mate?), so long as you are happy with yourself, chances are you will find that somebody in the next life.
If on the other hand you are lonely and miserable (which isn't to say things can't get better), then you will most likely find others like yourself to console you in your "self pity" -- i.e., and feel sorry for each other.
What if I don't want "somebody" in my next life? I want the people I have now to be with me, no matter how their desires are different? What if the difference in their desires, their individuality, is what makes them special to me? What if I want reconcilliation with the people I have wronged, even if they do not accept me? What if I love society as it is, and community is the fulfillment of desire? A personal heaven is a lonely place... and one that can only become a prison.
 
  • #55
Ruling Love

Originally posted by FZ+
What if I don't want "somebody" in my next life? I want the people I have now to be with me, no matter how their desires are different? What if the difference in their desires, their individuality, is what makes them special to me? What if I want reconcilliation with the people I have wronged, even if they do not accept me? What if I love society as it is, and community is the fulfillment of desire? A personal heaven is a lonely place... and one that can only become a prison.
Basically, as I understand it, you will find that which is most suitable to you, and it will seem as if it had always been that way, including the people around you. And whether or not these are people you actually know now (it all depends on compatibility), it will seem as though you always have. Whereas the same would hold true for those who are closest to you now.


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1072" ...

"Man after death is his own love or his own will.

This has been proved to me by manifold experience. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his like, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves." ~ http://www.swedenborg.com/" , Heaven and Hell
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
In that case, heaven is an illusion, is it not? Do do not get what you want, but rather you are changed to fit a little niche. Then how is heaven not a prison - a prison of the mind?
 
  • #57
Originally posted by FZ+
In that case, heaven is an illusion, is it not? Do do not get what you want, but rather you are changed to fit a little niche. Then how is heaven not a prison - a prison of the mind?
All I can tell you is that if you find happiness in this life, you will find it in the next ... It's as easy as that.
 
  • #58
So God will keep me topped up on prozac? Sounds like fun...
 

Similar threads

A role for a God in QF? (help me argue my case)
Replies
11
Views
3K
Can Morality Exist Without Belief in God?
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
Conclusion: God Not Needed for TOE
Replies
24
Views
3K
The Art of Wondering: Realism, Measurements & Becoming Gods
Replies
4
Views
2K
Is Believing in Love a Sign of Immaturity?
Replies
25
Views
4K
Creationism vs Evolution: Is there a place for religion in science?
Replies
2
Views
3K
The atheist smiled. "Welcome to my world."God and the Atheist: A Story
Replies
7
Views
4K
How (not) to discuss evolution/sciene vs. religion/creationsim
Replies
33
Views
8K
News Separation of Church and State May God Bless the rest of us?
3
Replies
99
Views
12K
An alternative for the system of God declared truths
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top