Anything possible must eventually happen?

[Aerex]

Yeah, but this really conflates issues. They don't want to believe in God because they don't like the concept so they posit a multiverse to try and explain away certain observations of the universe that we're in that might be suggestive, even if they're not absolute proof, that God does exist. But that doesn't make the 'problem' of God go away. Either when creation began it contain the capacity to unfold and produce one universe or the capacity to unfold and produce infinite universes. That capacity is required before that fact and the existence of it doesn't explain the multiverse any more than the universe.

Yes, 'heaven' is presented as a reward for doing good but it shouldn't be that's a mistake of theology which UR proponents should challenge.

Where is Jesus? That's the easiest question of all and at the same same the hardest. Jesus is God and with God and wherever God is which isn't in any created reality be it universe or multiverse.

I think it is a generalization to say that people don't believe because they don't like the concept. I think some can't find any evidence outside of faith and personal accounts. You're right the belief in multiple universes does not prove or disprove the existence if God. However the proof of God still resides on those who believe and not the non believers because as I said we rely on faith and not necessarily on fact.

In regards to the heaven and rewards discussion, it is not a mistake but it not necessarily spiritual. You can do X Y and Z but your motives do not necessarily have any thing to do with X Y and Z. This is the problem . 

[greg]

To play devil's advocate here, you  think that a multiple universe is a harder pill to swallow than a tyrannical old man who controls a single universe? I don't believe God is such but that is how he has been described over the countless centuries. Let's also not forget that this being has all this power, unlimited power, yet it feels like this being does not exist with all the problems in the world.

Furthermore, people do not need to have to believe in God to believe in good and evil. It seems most religious people do good things or adhere to suffering because they believe they will be rewarded. Keep in mind this is how animals behave. There is nothing spiritual about it. You give commands to a dog then you reward it with treats. The dog is not aware of or does not care about the commands. It only cares about the treats and later on those commands just become instinctual.

Evolution is based on natural selection which is an observable science that has been proven countless time whereas belief in God cannot. I think I made a thread about this not too long ago, but basically believing in something does not imply truth. People want truth not faith. If we mock those who believe in leprechauns, aliens, and fairies how can we not see why people mock us for believing in God. I am not saying God isn't real I just understand the opposing argument.

Also, if you don't believe in multiple universes/dimensions then where is Jesus? Do you believe that heaven is an actual place? Are spirits actual things? Are they of matter or light?

Interesting thoughts, Aerex. 

A little known fact: a man named Hug Everett was the first to propose the multiverse (a many-worlds speculation) as he theorized the wave function doesn't actually collapse, but rather it just seems like does. Everett was virtually estranged from his family - his daughter's suicide note read that she was going to visit her dad in a parallel universe.  Might God have left a clue for us here about the children of those building towers of Babylon?

Multiverse
I need to make it clear - the 'multiverse theory' is not based on observable physics, but rather is a theoretical speculation based on cherry-picked findings about cosmic inflation.  It's quite comical actually how many unobservable assumptions the multiverse theory is based on.  In other words, it is a house of cards.  For example:

• "It is worth mentioning that the many-worlds interpretation, apart from being hard to prove, comes across another serious difficulty. The very concept of probability loses its sense within such an interpretation. If all possible outcomes are real, why do any of the outcomes become more or less probable? Being statistical by its nature, quantum calculations show that during a repeated experiment, a particle would most likely appear in a certain place, however, the probability of some outcomes may be higher than others. So the particle will not necessarily appear in the most probable place, but it will get there more often. Nevertheless, with the mandatory execution of all outcomes the meaning of such probability – the foundation of quantum mechanics – vanishes." https://www.hse.ru/data/2015/06/05/1.../98HUM2015.pdf

In a multiverse theory, every single possibility is 'equally' likely because probability itself breaks down at infinity. So multiverse theorists are required to acknowledge that anything anyone says (so long as it complies with the current laws of physics, and regardless of constants) is just as plausible as anything else.  So the multiverse theory makes it impossible for a person to be a false prophet.

Plausibility is all that multiverse theorists ever attempted to claim, as even the multiverse proponent Alan Guth was forced to admit, "The multiverse is regarded either as an open question or off the wall."

Physicists will do well to acknowledge that their abstract theories are not facts, and vice-versa.  Indeed, even multiverse-leaning physicists acknowledge that these wave function collapse questions are mysteries: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.2192.pdf (note also the Penrose interpretation has not been tested empirically at the level of one graviton necessary to conduct the test).

Multiverse theorists manually inserted infinity-operators into their original equations, and then voila, found infinite results in their theory.  I have searched and I have not found any scientist who even disputes that the infinities were added from theory and not from experiment.

Origin of Randomness
Physicists show intrinsic randomness exists in finite systems. And if that system is cycling, then each cycle is likely to be different than the one before it. This allows for normal rules of entropy and randomness.

Randomness is inherently a statistical measure of obeying a probability law.

Quantum Physics can only predict the probabilities of events. Thus, the problem and solution for cosmology is that probabilities break down when the odds for and against anything are both infinite.

Regarding both finite and infinite sets, this mathematician concludes "most standard forms of argument used in cosmology to estimate the likelihood of the occurrence of various properties or behaviors of spacetimes have serious mathematical, physical and conceptual problems." [1509.01878] Measure, Topology and Probabilistic Reasoning in Cosmology

Multiverse Theory Is Likely To Cause Harm
In physics, the English word "infinity" is a mistranslation of experimental results (i.e., scientists presume their mathematical tool for abstract calculation actually represents reality). And if history repeats itself, then that mistranslation of 'infinity' in scientific research will result in physical harm to people.

For example, imagine a sample pool of 1,000,000 people in the year 2416. Transhumanism and biologic experimentation have been untethered, and 75% of the 'human' population believes in an infinite multiverse of both utopias and hells. 10% of that number (75,000 people) are scientists with unnaturally constructed transhumanist brains, and they acknowledge the multiverse allows moral relativism. Their experiments are dangerous.

It is dangerous to abandon nature's lessons.

Words Are Important
Something that a scientist calls 'infinite' is just a mathematical abstraction designed to ease his calculations. By contrast, 'perpetual system' is a more honest phrase for cosmological theory - a perpetual system should be measured in present & finite parameters in this universe. So, if something qualifies as 'perpetual' it would mean the system is measured in its current state as a sustainable one in this universe that would theoretically (1) continue growing (without ever incurring a bankruptcy of energy) and/or (2) collapse on itself but without destroying itself (i.e., surviving charge compression, creating seed).

Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) model is perhaps the most famous multiverse theory presented. And even CCC does not require infinite space or infinite time (and I feel the same about Steinhardt-Turok ekpyrotic models), because I inherently recognize the difference between 'infinite' and 'perpetual'.

Now, whether any 'perpetual system' (universe) actually does continue infinitely? -- that is beyond the horizon to any observer.

Therefore, the word 'infinite' should not be used to describe anything physical. Rather, 'infinity' is just a tool to assist abstract calculations that would otherwise be too data-heavy. That's really my key point here, rather than trying to figure out which cosmological theory is correct. Though I do see there is overlap in the questions.

I see nature is inviting us to study perpetual systems in the specific context of sustainability and regeneration, like breathing in and out, and in and out. Or, receiving energy to grow, and transferring energy to seed, etc.

Philosophically, the infinite multiverse theory is also fundamentally dangerous when we remember the focus of the observer is part of the equation. The multiverse theory strikes these two key words -- "in God" -- from this equation: "In God anything is possible". And the cost of that 'intellectual proposal' (i.e., the "infinite multiverse theory" without a just God) is the focus of human minds toward believing in 'infinitely' unjust and exponentially torturous universes - where things so unspeakable occur that they would 'shatter minds into infinite pieces'. That is not sustainable for minds. We must remember, in this universe, the focus of the observer is part of the equation. That's a huge clue to us as breathing, sentient thinkers who desire to be in harmony with nature and active participants in reality. A scientist who preaches with confidence something exponential that he cannot prove is engaged in something very similar to a certain type of priest. As evidenced by man's long history of preaching everlasting hell, there is a danger that real people in this real universe will believe in the multiverse and act upon the belief of moral relativism. It was the belief in everlasting hell that motivated medieval torturers during the dark ages -- the torturers thought they were actually 'helping heretics' avoid a worse fate in a presumed afterlife. So, history shows a tangible, practical danger from presenting 'everlasting torture' logic to sentient beings on earth.

I think the multiverse belongs in science fiction. It does not have a reliable mathematical footing, and it cannot be tested empirically, so it is not appropriate for physicists to present the multiverse as anything other than raw, unadulterated speculation. I would liken the theory to one saying that two parallel lines "meet at infinity" -- it's just raw, un-mathematical speculation. Or it is like saying the value of 0/0 has infinite answers -- that is just raw, un-mathematical speculation.

Bible
The bible has the oldest recorded cosmological theory. The evidence for it is found in the people who have devoted their lives to communicating with the Creator. Sometimes, signs and wonders follow. Science too has produced signs and wonders. It is important to acknowledge where the bible and science are in harmony. In Hebrew, the words for 'Messiah' (mShyKha) and 'probabilities' (mShykKha) come from the same root word meaning "possible" – indeed, they are routinely a wordplay for one another in the bible, as they sound almost the same when spoken.

In Steinhardt's and Turok's book, "For example, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the opening lines in the Book of Genesis do not make clear if they are describing the creation of the Earth and Sun or of the entire universe.  In other places, the word used for "creation" refers to molding the world from preexisting formless material."  The literal Hebrew word in Genesis (later translated into English as "day") was used initially in the fundamental sense of 'light' and 'regeneration', rather than in the sense of a partial rotation of the earth around the sun.

The ancient literal text of the bible provides a cosmological model that is cyclic, where only the Creator lives continually,

•     Isaiah 43:10, "Before Me there was no god formed, And after Me not shall be."
•     Psalm 102:25-27 – "You have laid the foundation of the earth of old. And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish but You shall endure. All of them shall become old like a garment. You shall change them like clothing, and they shall be changed. But You are He, and Your years shall not be ended."
•     1 Kings 8:27, "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain You."
•     2 Chronicles 2:6, "But who is able to enclose a house for Him, since the heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him?"

If you remain in the Creator you live in Him from world/age to world/age perpetually,

•      Psalm 90:2 – "Before the mountains were born and you formed the land and soil, even from age unto age You are God."
•      John 10:28, "And I give, I am to them life that is to a world/age, and they will not perish to a world/age." This language is a very specific promise about the world/age to come. If the messiah was going to promise that someone will never perish ever, then the text should instead say "they will not perish ever".
•      John 11:25, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, even if he should die he will live. And whoever lives and believes in me to a world/age will not die." Once again we see the promise of life is very specifically in reference to the world/age to come. The indefinite form of the word is used in the original language "a world/age" rather than the definite form "this world/age".
•      Ecclesiastes 3:11, "He made all things beautiful in their time, and indeed gave the age to their heart, yet so that man might not find what God has made from the beginning even until the end."

If you depart from the Creator you will eventually die because that which is outside the Creator is destroyed in its appropriate season.

•      Proverbs 12:7, "The wicked are overthrown, and are no more, but the house of the righteous shall stand."
•      Matthew 10:28, "And awe not of them who slaughter the body and are not able to slaughter the soul: but awe of Him who is able to destroy soul and body in Gehanna, the Valley of Burning."
•      Probers 24:20, "The evil have no future. The lamp of the wicked will go out."
•      In the psalms, King David describes the wicked "like chaff that the wind drives away... the wicked will perish" (Psalm 1:4 and 1:6). And see how he describes the wicked as dead men that are not even remembered in Psalms 9:6 and 34:16. David explains that the wicked "fade like the grass, and wither like an herb" (Psalm 37:2). They "shall be cut off...and...will be no more; though you look diligently for their place, they will not be there. (Psalm 37:9–10). "The wicked perish...like smoke they vanish away" (Psalm 37:20). "The transgressors shall be altogether destroyed" (Psalm 37:38). The wicked are analogized to finite things like grass, and then the text explains that they are destroyed as finite things are destroyed.
•      Nahum 1:9-10, "What are you plotting against Yahweh? He will make an utter end; distress shall not rise up a second time. For as thorns are woven together, and as their drunkards are drunken, they shall be devoured like fully dried straw."
•      Malachi 4:1, "Behold, the day is coming, burning like a firepot; and all the proud, and every doer of wickedness shall be chaff. And the coming day will set them ablaze, says Yahweh of Hosts, which will not leave root or branches to them."

Existentialism
Theoretically, human faith, logic, and skepticism can all be manipulated beyond human comprehension. So, why should we trust our minds?  This is a kind of nihilistic question, and it often feels ignorant of experience. By contrast, it feels honest to say that people observe the power to think and tinker, and because humans did not create this world, the Authority that did is showing us something.

Our minds are fragile due to limited perspectives.  For example, no human can prove whether or not invisible powers (spirits, aliens, etc) may be fooling us about existence.  Consider hypothetically what spirits or aliens could orchestrate through mind control that relies on hidden physics... as we have limited perspectives, we must admit logically that the extent of the mind control is theoretically unlimited – time and space might be just the tip of some exponential iceberg of deception.  When faced with any classic 'alien powers' example, we are required to fix our minds in one kind of thing – uncertainty, doubt, speculation, human incapacity to answer – skepticism.  So in this example, we find yet another proof that we cannot define "capital G God", nor can we define "everything" or "truth".

A Logical Challenge for Anyone Here at Tentmaker
I consider this the most frightening issue in the known universe from the human perspective: we can rationalize that even the ultimate Authority of the universe (if any) would logically wonder whether it too was a created being, subject to the authority of Something 'invisible' still.  Yes, the concept of the Unknown is universally pervasive – to human logic, no divine being is immune from the Concept of the Unknown.  Accordingly, it is logical for mankind to wonder whether the ultimate Authority over us would ever try to satisfy its curiosity toward the Unknown by manufacturing extreme injustices in our worlds (i.e., unspeakable tortures) just to test if there really is a greater Authority out there in the Unknown willing to intervene in order to stop the horrific injustices.  In this hypothetical, the injustices grow exponentially more terrible as the Authority tries exponentially harder to test whether it is truly alone in the universe.  Frightening!!   I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority.

For example, the bible emphasizes 'do unto others because what you measure will be measured back to you'. See, Matthew 7:1-12.  And in the bible, exact measurements are deemed 'just', appointed times are 'essential to life', etc.  When the biblical Authority gives these laws to us created beings, we rationalize this Authority also respects these laws.  Some of us go farther – we like to assume the highest morality is inextricably bound with an  Inescapable Law of 'cause-and-effect'.  So when some of us humans observe 'cause-and-effect' laws described in our bible, we take comfort in our assumption by analogy: that the biblical Authority also would not engage in exponential injustice, for fear that it too would suffer reciprocity for its own injustices at the hands of a higher Power similarly constituted with a Universal Logic of cause-and-effect retribution.

Now for the surprising logic – the concept of an exponential forgiveness requirement is also frightening. Why?  Because logically, a law of forgiveness could theoretically be exploited as an 'exponential loophole' in the cosmic justice system to avoid exponential amounts of personal accountability for 'cause-and-effect'.  Ask: why would a truly Divine being ever need forgiveness; for if they do (or even if they wonder if they do), are they truly divine, and have they not already proven that they are capable of wondering whether they are truly divine? And if they are not truly Divine or are wondering so, then perhaps they indeed have the 'personality' in them to engage in torture-testing to explore the Unknown.  So, paradoxically, perhaps the most frightening Authority of all is one who claims to reign alone and creates a universal law of forgiveness.

In my opinion, anyone who can resolve this paradox will perform a great service to humanity, for this paradox is a great barrier to loving any Ultimate Authority. Alternatively, if the paradox cannot be resolved, then it sets a paradigm of universal experience in such a way that Greatness can be viewed as not subservient to Absolute Power, but rather paradoxically that Greatness is a product that is best described as the mutual balance of Power and Humility.

[GodIsLove]

Greg, in my opinion your last post humanizes God to a point that doesn't make sense to me.

If there is a God, and I believe there is, this God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

So God doesn't "wonder" if He is God. This is a human trait based on our limited understanding right now.

We use "He" but I don't believe God is gendered.

For me, the paradox is more along these lines:

If God answers the question of who made the universe, why don't we wonder who created God? The answer is always that God is eternal and wasn't created but that is the concept that sometimes creeps into my head. Not that God would wonder if He was created, but that we would wonder why everything needs a first cause except for God.

The God you describe sounds like a kid playing with an anthill and I don't think of God in this way.

The OT God often is described like that but I believe that is due to the limited understanding of the OT writers. God doesn't change his mind, regret, as questions as if he doesn't know the answer, etc. This is a more Primitive people trying to understand God and describing him in these ways.

As always, these things are "in my opinion" :)

[greg]

Greg, in my opinion your last post humanizes God to a point that doesn't make sense to me.

If there is a God, and I believe there is, this God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

So God doesn't "wonder" if He is God. This is a human trait based on our limited understanding right now.

We use "He" but I don't believe God is gendered.

For me, the paradox is more along these lines:

If God answers the question of who made the universe, why don't we wonder who created God? The answer is always that God is eternal and wasn't created but that is the concept that sometimes creeps into my head. Not that God would wonder if He was created, but that we would wonder why everything needs a first cause except for God.

The God you describe sounds like a kid playing with an anthill and I don't think of God in this way.

The OT God often is described like that but I believe that is due to the limited understanding of the OT writers. God doesn't change his mind, regret, as questions as if he doesn't know the answer, etc. This is a more Primitive people trying to understand God and describing him in these ways.

As always, these things are "in my opinion" :)

GIL, I think the answer is faith.  But let's explore this mathematically and logically, because that's what we're talking about in terms of 'probability'...

Infinity and probability go hand in hand (or scale in scale) when analyzing the universe, in my opinion. I'm sure it's been said that the most unlikely thing we humans can postulate is the absence of a first cause. Whereas the most likely thing we can postulate is absolute certainty of our present existence. Imagine these two extremes (likely and unlikely) are poles on an atom, or electricity and magnetism, or select your favorite polar example.  Now ask this:

What are two paradoxes about 'nothingness' that could theoretically create a 'charge' between them to compete for relative probability? And what are two paradoxes about 'certainty' that could theoretically create a 'void' as they compete for relative probability?

GIL, if you can answer that question scientifically for me, you will have contributed greatly to mankind in my opinion.

I think, to say there was never a 'possibility' would require 'certainty'. To abstain from the question leaves 'possibility' open. If there was always a possibility, then perhaps possibility is the first cause.

Imagine hypothetically that we found at the quantum level a 'plasma' of probability waves where causality and reverse-causality are indistinguishable (because anything is possible at the center of that torus), such that consciousness would be fairly defined as the attempt to observe the motion of plasma energy in a particular order.  The absence of random patterns would be the presence of causality, and the tension between these two (order and randomness) would be consciousness. Even a slight pattern inside the plasma would magnify trillions of times into the outer structure of the torus in which we experience classical reality.

'Possibility' and 'nothing' are mutually exclusive. 'Possibility' covers all things but 'nothing' defines itself. It may be the tension between these two create a kind of first cause – competition for relative probability to the perspective of a holographic observer.

[CST]

Yeah, but this really conflates issues. They don't want to believe in God because they don't like the concept so they posit a multiverse to try and explain away certain observations of the universe that we're in that might be suggestive, even if they're not absolute proof, that God does exist. But that doesn't make the 'problem' of God go away. Either when creation began it contain the capacity to unfold and produce one universe or the capacity to unfold and produce infinite universes. That capacity is required before that fact and the existence of it doesn't explain the multiverse any more than the universe.

Yes, 'heaven' is presented as a reward for doing good but it shouldn't be that's a mistake of theology which UR proponents should challenge.

Where is Jesus? That's the easiest question of all and at the same same the hardest. Jesus is God and with God and wherever God is which isn't in any created reality be it universe or multiverse.

I think it is a generalization to say that people don't believe because they don't like the concept. I think some can't find any evidence outside of faith and personal accounts. You're right the belief in multiple universes does not prove or disprove the existence if God. However the proof of God still resides on those who believe and not the non believers because as I said we rely on faith and not necessarily on fact.

In regards to the heaven and rewards discussion, it is not a mistake but it not necessarily spiritual. You can do X Y and Z but your motives do not necessarily have any thing to do with X Y and Z. This is the problem .

If you think it's a generalization than why did you open your post with the phrase "To play devil's advocate here, you  think that a multiple universe is a harder pill to swallow than a tyrannical old man who controls a single universe?" That suggests that you are arguing people are leaning towards the muliverse because they don't like the 'tyrannical old man' concept of God.

Heaven cannot be a reward for anything in any real sense because the Bible makes it clear that God gives it a 'free gift' and cannot be earned by any works of hours so how can it be a reward? It's not that would suggest we could earn it by doing good which we can't because we are supposed to do good anyway but you don't and so risk depriving ourselves of our place in the city for a time. That's all of us, without exception. It's not a reward because we can never do anything to merit it but only to lose it to some degree.

[CST]

Greg, in my opinion your last post humanizes God to a point that doesn't make sense to me.

If there is a God, and I believe there is, this God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

So God doesn't "wonder" if He is God. This is a human trait based on our limited understanding right now.

We use "He" but I don't believe God is gendered.

For me, the paradox is more along these lines:

If God answers the question of who made the universe, why don't we wonder who created God? The answer is always that God is eternal and wasn't created but that is the concept that sometimes creeps into my head. Not that God would wonder if He was created, but that we would wonder why everything needs a first cause except for God.

The God you describe sounds like a kid playing with an anthill and I don't think of God in this way.

The OT God often is described like that but I believe that is due to the limited understanding of the OT writers. God doesn't change his mind, regret, as questions as if he doesn't know the answer, etc. This is a more Primitive people trying to understand God and describing him in these ways.

As always, these things are "in my opinion" :)

GIL, I think the answer is faith.  But let's explore this mathematically and logically, because that's what we're talking about in terms of 'probability'...

Infinity and probability go hand in hand (or scale in scale) when analyzing the universe, in my opinion. I'm sure it's been said that the most unlikely thing we humans can postulate is the absence of a first cause. Whereas the most likely thing we can postulate is absolute certainty of our present existence. Imagine these two extremes (likely and unlikely) are poles on an atom, or electricity and magnetism, or select your favorite polar example.  Now ask this:

What are two paradoxes about 'nothingness' that could theoretically create a 'charge' between them to compete for relative probability? And what are two paradoxes about 'certainty' that could theoretically create a 'void' as they compete for relative probability?

GIL, if you can answer that question scientifically for me, you will have contributed greatly to mankind in my opinion.

I think, to say there was never a 'possibility' would require 'certainty'. To abstain from the question leaves 'possibility' open. If there was always a possibility, then perhaps possibility is the first cause.

Imagine hypothetically that we found at the quantum level a 'plasma' of probability waves where causality and reverse-causality are indistinguishable (because anything is possible at the center of that torus), such that consciousness would be fairly defined as the attempt to observe the motion of plasma energy in a particular order.  The absence of random patterns would be the presence of causality, and the tension between these two (order and randomness) would be consciousness. Even a slight pattern inside the plasma would magnify trillions of times into the outer structure of the torus in which we experience classical reality.

'Possibility' and 'nothing' are mutually exclusive. 'Possibility' covers all things but 'nothing' defines itself. It may be the tension between these two create a kind of first cause – competition for relative probability to the perspective of a holographic observer.

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

[greg]

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

Thank you for the reply.  Respectfully, I actually never said or even suggested God was irrational.  Indeed, I'm not attacking God at all, but rather questioning man's perception.   I am saying that logical man has a fear.

In any case, you must realize your reply simply proved my point, that you've chosen Option 3 that I highlighted: "I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority."

[Reverend G]

The problem begins with our own thinking, being pretentious enough to think we can be rational when considering a subject so literally outside of our comprehension.
Verbosity and equations do not create understanding.

[CST]

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

Thank you for the reply.  Respectfully, I actually never said or even suggested God was irrational.  Indeed, I'm not attacking God at all, but rather questioning man's perception.   I am saying that logical man has a fear.

In any case, you must realize your reply simply proved my point, that you've chosen Option 3 that I highlighted: "I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority."

You are aware that those three options can be summarized in one word: Faith?

Anyway I don't see why what you're claiming is a paradox. All your doing is saying how do we know God knows that He's God? He says He does and He's been around forever why doubt He knows.

There are certain things I expect of God and that is to embody the best qualities of everything on the planet and, indeed, in the universe which He has made and fills. If He doesn't than the concept of them being 'best qualities' is dead. It loses all meaning and becomes entirely subjective. If God doesn't represent these qualities than any of us that do is doing a better job than God, but probably not a better job than the pseudo-God you're proposing that God worried might be above Him. You're creating an infinite regress here it's nonsense.

God created the world with some purpose He intends to fulfill and display to those He's made. He has made known to us, His children, at least in part, what that purpose is. He has made it known through His revelations and commandments and, of course, the sacrifice of Jesus, who is Himself, which is a very big deal and something you have to get past if you want to claim God is somehow sinister which is what you are trying to do.

God has created the world with a purpose and He will act only to further that purpose and never to oppose it for to do so would be irrational. That is the cornerstone of morality, God acting to uphold His own intent and bring what He is doing to completion. We have the capacity, free or otherwise, to oppose that purpose and do so to varying degrees. That is the root of immorality and  that is sin. We can do it God never can and will oppose us to whatever degree is necessary to stop us undermining His goal.

I don't need to worry about whether or not God is worried about whether or not there's a spurious super God above Him that He might be tempted to test. I only need to worry about whether or not God is really committed to fulfilling His purposes for the world as He tells us He is. Because as long as He is I can trust in our salvation and don't need to worry about other nonsense beings.

[greg]

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

Thank you for the reply.  Respectfully, I actually never said or even suggested God was irrational.  Indeed, I'm not attacking God at all, but rather questioning man's perception.   I am saying that logical man has a fear.

In any case, you must realize your reply simply proved my point, that you've chosen Option 3 that I highlighted: "I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority."

You are aware that those three options can be summarized in one word: Faith?

Anyway I don't see why what you're claiming is a paradox. All your doing is saying how do we know God knows that He's God? He says He does and He's been around forever why doubt He knows.

There are certain things I expect of God and that is to embody the best qualities of everything on the planet and, indeed, in the universe which He has made and fills. If He doesn't than the concept of them being 'best qualities' is dead. It loses all meaning and becomes entirely subjective. If God doesn't represent these qualities than any of us that do is doing a better job than God, but probably not a better job than the pseudo-God you're proposing that God worried might be above Him. You're creating an infinite regress here it's nonsense.

God created the world with some purpose He intends to fulfill and display to those He's made. He has made known to us, His children, at least in part, what that purpose is. He has made it known through His revelations and commandments and, of course, the sacrifice of Jesus, who is Himself, which is a very big deal and something you have to get past if you want to claim God is somehow sinister which is what you are trying to do.

God has created the world with a purpose and He will act only to further that purpose and never to oppose it for to do so would be irrational. That is the cornerstone of morality, God acting to uphold His own intent and bring what He is doing to completion. We have the capacity, free or otherwise, to oppose that purpose and do so to varying degrees. That is the root of immorality and  that is sin. We can do it God never can and will oppose us to whatever degree is necessary to stop us undermining His goal.

I don't need to worry about whether or not God is worried about whether or not there's a spurious super God above Him that He might be tempted to test. I only need to worry about whether or not God is really committed to fulfilling His purposes for the world as He tells us He is. Because as long as He is I can trust in our salvation and don't need to worry about other nonsense beings.

Isaiah 45:7, "Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Yahweh, doing all these things."

The paradox would be inside man's psychology --  that the most frightening Authority that men could face in the universe would be the Authority who offers forgiveness, because if forgiveness is indeed a universal law (i.e., fearful man wonders if he also must forgive God for "preparing evil"), then forgiveness is potentially an exponential loophole in the cosmic justice system.  While we might exploit that loophole in some small way to be forgiven of our little sins on earth, we also imagine that the Authority might exploit that loophole in exponential ways. 

In the language of the apostles in first century Israel, the root word for forgiveness is Shbq ("release").   Other words that inform this same topic are "destruction" and "transformation/exchange".

Imagine a universe without forgiveness -- a universe without 'release'.  Would a universe without release be a universe with 'exponential accumulation'?   And if the beings in that universe without release were flawed (i.e., us), then would any exponential accumulation of their flaws (and the consequences of those flaws, and the consequences of the consequences of those flaws...) start to look like an everlasting hell?

It seems to my limited mind that it is beneficial to have forgiveness/release, along with destruction and transformation -- all of these would theoretically prevent the exponential accumulation of flaws/sins.

But that's simply a defense/rationalization to the original human fear, the fear of a rigged system.  So the paradox remains -- the psychology of man experiences an obstacle to love in the form of forgiveness, because forgiveness looks like a breach of justice.

Luke 7:47, "On account of this, I say to you, that her many sins are forgiven her because she loved much, but he who is forgiven a little loves a little."

So which is it, the greater the forgiveness the greater the love, or the greater the justice the greater the love?

For me, the promise of the Messiah is that forgiveness and justice are reconciled -- and the manner of that reconciliation through Yahshua's sacrifice/exchange is a mystery. 

So in this example, faith is a talent of human psychology to defend against fear.  I'm not counting on human faith here to solve the psychological problem.  I'm counting on the Messiah to balance an equation where forgiveness is not unlimited, but is measured. 

Matthew 26:28, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed in exchange for the many for the release of sins."

Matthew 6:15, "If you will not forgive the children of men, neither has your Father forgiven you your faults."

Matthew 18:21-22, "Then Kapa approached him, and he said, 'My Lord, if my brother commits an offense against me, how many times shall I forgive him? Seven times?' And Yeshua said to him, 'I do not say to you until seven times, but until seventy times seven.'"

[eaglesway]

While I agree with your overall point Greg, I take some exception to your use and interpretation of Isaiah 45:7, if I understand it properly.

The evil that God was speaking of, was in the context of judging Israel for persistent wickedness. IMO, to many people take that verse out of context with the surrounding passages to assert that God creates wickedness. He himself prepares no wickedness. In the context, the evil He is preparing is the removal of His protection over Israel because of their disregard for Him, and their love of wickedness, so that in this case, evil speaks of heavy disciplines and consequences that God is preparing for egregiously rebellious children. In this context, the flood of Noah's day was evil sent from the Lord to destroy wickedness.

Evil in this context refers to the coming judgment.

רע commonly called evil.
רשע commonly called wicked.
טוב commonly called good.

In Semitic thought-form, all רשע(wckdnss) is רע(evl), but not all רע(evl) is רשע(wckdnss). The Creator of all does both טוב(good) and רע(evl), but never רשע(wckdnss). When a father does רע to his son by grounding him for doing wrong, the fathers' discipline, although רע, is not רשע. In fact, it is טוב.

[greg]

While I agree with your overall point Greg, I take some exception to your use and interpretation of Isaiah 45:7, if I understand it properly.

The evil that God was speaking of, was in the context of judging Israel for persistent wickedness. IMO, to many people take that verse out of context with the surrounding passages to assert that God creates wickedness. He himself prepares no wickedness. In the context, the evil He is preparing is the removal of His protection over Israel because of their disregard for Him, and their love of wickedness, so that in this case, evil speaks of heavy disciplines and consequences that God is preparing for egregiously rebellious children. In this context, the flood of Noah's day was evil sent from the Lord to destroy wickedness.

Evil in this context refers to the coming judgment.

רע commonly called evil.
רשע commonly called wicked.
טוב commonly called good.

In Semitic thought-form, all רשע(wckdnss) is רע(evl), but not all רע(evl) is רשע(wckdnss). The Creator of all does both טוב(good) and רע(evl), but never רשע(wckdnss). When a father does רע to his son by grounding him for doing wrong, the fathers' discipline, although רע, is not רשע. In fact, it is טוב.

Good points.  I was using Isaiah 45:7 as an example -- and you're right, the context (i.e., regarding Cyrus and Israel) is key to understanding it.  I would say though that Isaiah 45 does expand into a far reaching context, as we see for example in 45:22, "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other."

I liked your Hebrew insights -- I'll add that  רשע is a legal term, and often used in that context.  Indeed, I can't imagine anyone using that word to judge God.  It would be like calling God a murderer?  One simply can't do it biblically because there is no one above God to judge God a murderer.  Rather, God can only be called a killer or destroyer as one of His attributes.  I say this with respect of course -- it's a fine thing to destroy something that deserves it. 

As a side note, there is an amazing authenticity in the gospel on this point because a word's conjugation alone cannot bring about the legal conclusion "murder". In the gospel, you need a judge or judgment to do that. That is why we see the conjugation qtula ("murderer(s)") only when the judge appears in Matthew 22:7, but not earlier in verses 22:3-6 (where we see qtl ("kill"). See also John 15:2 (showing temporal retroactivity); Rev 22:14; John 10:10 (already judged a "thief"). It's a subtle point in the gospel, but an important point that can be easily overlooked.

Matthew 5:21, "You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones: la Thqtul ("not you murder/kill")." See also Mark 10:19 qtul ("murder"). After this, Yahshua describes that murder is really a matter of the heart! That's huge. For example, who will judge the heart? See 1 Samuel 6:17; See also, Matthew 19:18 Thqtul ("you murder/kill").

Perhaps there is some great cosmic corollary as well, where no one has the ability to forgive God, or release God, or destroy God? 

I've always wondered about this topic actually -- how on earth can we even have the perspective necessary to praise God by saying things like "God is Almighty" or "God is Holy" or "God is without sin"?  I mean, I'm 37-years old with ten fingers and ten toes on a planet called earth - how would I know?  Praise often feels like pandering to me :/ 

For some reason though, I feel differently about questions asked with respectful awe, such as, "How holy is the Father?"  I honestly don't know, but I enjoy wondering.   "How great is His love?"  ...

Children often proclaim big answers to questions beyond their perspective.  Sometimes its cute, sometimes funny.  Often wrong though.   Feels like earth is a learning and testing environment. 

[CST]

You seem to be positing that God is irrational, He isn't. And anyway why should I doubt God would be consistent in His goodness because He might doubt He was the supreme being and wanted to test it when I can more easily don't that He might more easily doubt that God is actually that good?

Thank you for the reply.  Respectfully, I actually never said or even suggested God was irrational.  Indeed, I'm not attacking God at all, but rather questioning man's perception.   I am saying that logical man has a fear.

In any case, you must realize your reply simply proved my point, that you've chosen Option 3 that I highlighted: "I rationalize there are only three things that mitigate this fear to the human perspective: (1) our ability to avoid thinking (and our comfort with being irrational), (2) our ability to observe a consistent application of the Universal Law of 'cause-and-effect', and (3) our hope for the benevolence (or at least non-evil nature) of an omnipotent Authority."

You are aware that those three options can be summarized in one word: Faith?

Anyway I don't see why what you're claiming is a paradox. All your doing is saying how do we know God knows that He's God? He says He does and He's been around forever why doubt He knows.

There are certain things I expect of God and that is to embody the best qualities of everything on the planet and, indeed, in the universe which He has made and fills. If He doesn't than the concept of them being 'best qualities' is dead. It loses all meaning and becomes entirely subjective. If God doesn't represent these qualities than any of us that do is doing a better job than God, but probably not a better job than the pseudo-God you're proposing that God worried might be above Him. You're creating an infinite regress here it's nonsense.

God created the world with some purpose He intends to fulfill and display to those He's made. He has made known to us, His children, at least in part, what that purpose is. He has made it known through His revelations and commandments and, of course, the sacrifice of Jesus, who is Himself, which is a very big deal and something you have to get past if you want to claim God is somehow sinister which is what you are trying to do.

God has created the world with a purpose and He will act only to further that purpose and never to oppose it for to do so would be irrational. That is the cornerstone of morality, God acting to uphold His own intent and bring what He is doing to completion. We have the capacity, free or otherwise, to oppose that purpose and do so to varying degrees. That is the root of immorality and  that is sin. We can do it God never can and will oppose us to whatever degree is necessary to stop us undermining His goal.

I don't need to worry about whether or not God is worried about whether or not there's a spurious super God above Him that He might be tempted to test. I only need to worry about whether or not God is really committed to fulfilling His purposes for the world as He tells us He is. Because as long as He is I can trust in our salvation and don't need to worry about other nonsense beings.

Isaiah 45:7, "Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Yahweh, doing all these things."

The paradox would be inside man's psychology --  that the most frightening Authority that men could face in the universe would be the Authority who offers forgiveness, because if forgiveness is indeed a universal law (i.e., fearful man wonders if he also must forgive God for "preparing evil"), then forgiveness is potentially an exponential loophole in the cosmic justice system.  While we might exploit that loophole in some small way to be forgiven of our little sins on earth, we also imagine that the Authority might exploit that loophole in exponential ways. 

In the language of the apostles in first century Israel, the root word for forgiveness is Shbq ("release").   Other words that inform this same topic are "destruction" and "transformation/exchange".

Imagine a universe without forgiveness -- a universe without 'release'.  Would a universe without release be a universe with 'exponential accumulation'?   And if the beings in that universe without release were flawed (i.e., us), then would any exponential accumulation of their flaws (and the consequences of those flaws, and the consequences of the consequences of those flaws...) start to look like an everlasting hell?

It seems to my limited mind that it is beneficial to have forgiveness/release, along with destruction and transformation -- all of these would theoretically prevent the exponential accumulation of flaws/sins.

But that's simply a defense/rationalization to the original human fear, the fear of a rigged system.  So the paradox remains -- the psychology of man experiences an obstacle to love in the form of forgiveness, because forgiveness looks like a breach of justice.

Luke 7:47, "On account of this, I say to you, that her many sins are forgiven her because she loved much, but he who is forgiven a little loves a little."

So which is it, the greater the forgiveness the greater the love, or the greater the justice the greater the love?

For me, the promise of the Messiah is that forgiveness and justice are reconciled -- and the manner of that reconciliation through Yahshua's sacrifice/exchange is a mystery. 

So in this example, faith is a talent of human psychology to defend against fear.  I'm not counting on human faith here to solve the psychological problem.  I'm counting on the Messiah to balance an equation where forgiveness is not unlimited, but is measured. 

Matthew 26:28, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed in exchange for the many for the release of sins."

Matthew 6:15, "If you will not forgive the children of men, neither has your Father forgiven you your faults."

Matthew 18:21-22, "Then Kapa approached him, and he said, 'My Lord, if my brother commits an offense against me, how many times shall I forgive him? Seven times?' And Yeshua said to him, 'I do not say to you until seven times, but until seventy times seven.'"

I think you may have misunderstood something rather fundamental here while talking around it which makes everything you have said meaningless. God does not instruct of to forgive evil He does not even demand that we forgive wickedness. The requirement is to forgive each others sin, because we all do it and we're all guilty.

God, however, as the Bible makes very clear is not guilty. He does not sin and has nothing to be forgiven for and that is a basic fact of what sin is and God will never be guilty of such.

Oh and 'seventy times seven' isn't 490 here, it's completely and forever and always.

[eaglesway]

Perhaps there is some great cosmic corollary as well, where no one has the ability to forgive God, or release God, or destroy God? 

I've always wondered about this topic actually -- how on earth can we even have the perspective necessary to praise God by saying things like "God is Almighty" or "God is Holy" or "God is without sin"?  I mean, I'm 37-years old with ten fingers and ten toes on a planet called earth - how would I know?  Praise often feels like pandering to me :/ 

For some reason though, I feel differently about questions asked with respectful awe, such as, "How holy is the Father?"  I honestly don't know, but I enjoy wondering.   "How great is His love?"  ...

Children often proclaim big answers to questions beyond their perspective.  Sometimes its cute, sometimes funny.  Often wrong though.   Feels like earth is a learning and testing environment.

Yes!

We are children. The humility in that acknowledgment allows fellowship in disagreement because underneath our perspectives in the knowledge that we have a limited perspective.

"Unless you become as this little child you cannot enter the kingdom of God"

Big things cannot get through small openings. Samll openings become infinite portals to the lowly of heart.

"Who has known the mind of the Lord and Who has been His counselor for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things".

I also agree with you about praise and pandering. We have been(often) taught to pander.

I think true praise comes as a spontanoeous response to immensity and glory and beauty. Like a view of a great canyon that takes ones breath away, or that feeling I get standing by the ocean at night as a storm is blowing in and the beauty and strength of it cause my spirit to soar.

True worship is service and seeking, loving and forgiving, repenting, as in...

Then I said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." Isaiah 6

or

5"I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; 6Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes."

When we get near to awesomeness, the response is awe. Religious praise is something else-not to say we have to be having a spiritual epiphany to give glory to God, but to touch Him and be touched by Him, I think that empowers true praise.