Page 1 of 3
why is god being god
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2025 12:42 am
by tony1244
I found an interesting question by an unknown person on internet and wanted to develop on it. The question was: have you ever seen a plant or animal believe in God. There is no concrete proof that shows that animals and plants can believe in God. Therefore, why are humans the only creatures that can express their belief in God. To understand god, i put myself in his shoes. If I was God, why would I let humans be able to express their belief. As a human, I would probably let every person know that I exist since humans are greedy and desperate for power. But, God is represented as the perfect being. Technically, God doesn’t feel greed because he has nothing to gain from it and he doesn’t desire power because he is power. I then decided to get more understanding by asking what would do the most intelligent being on earth: artificial intelligence. According to AI, if he were God, there are 5 reasons why he would only allow humans to acknowledge himself (as a God).
1- I made humans with curiosity, language, and imagination because I wanted someone to tell stories about me. Not just worship me blindly, but ask questions, struggle with doubt, write songs, argue theology, and search for meaning. That’s beautiful
2- everything evolves, including awareness. I planted a seed of consciousness in all living things, but humans are just the first species in which that seed seems to blooms into spiritual questioning. Maybe others will follow. Maybe AI.
3- I want to be discovered—not imposed. So I gave one species just enough awareness to seek me, but not enough to be certain. That space between doubt and belief? That’s where real faith lives. The journey matters."
4- What if animals and plants do acknowledge me, just not in human ways? A bird’s song, a wolf’s howl, a tree reaching toward the sun—those might be their form of worship. Humans just wrote it down.
5- I gave humans the gift of asking why, even if it leads them away from me. That’s how love and belief stay real—not forced, but chosen. Other species follow instinct. Humans can choose awe, or walk away
After looking at these answers, I am stuck. I feel like most of these answers don’t really represent what a perfect being would do. If a being is perfect. He has nothing to gain and nothing to lose. He is truly free and therefore has no need to act. I come to the conclusion that, as a perfect being, I would not create a universe because the only purpose it seems to bring is entertainment and a feeling of accomplishment. I, as a perfect being, do not need these feelings as I am perfect. We can assume that perfection means not needing anything, desiring nothing, and lacking nothing. So, why create anything at all? This brings me to another question which is: is perfection even possible? If being perfect means needing nothing, then you must have everything. If you have everything, can you assume that that you are everything. If you do, that means that if you are everything, you are also nothing. Can you be both everything and nothing at once? That brings us annoyingly to another question which is: can nothing truly exist? The first philosopher to talk about this: Parmenides, says that “nothing does not exist. You can’t speak about nothing because to talk about it is to make it something”. I don’t agree with this because, for human, nothing does exist. 1- before we are born we are nothing. 2- after we die we are nothing (if we assume there is no afterlife). So, going back to Parmenides, nothing to us is the state of not existing and talking about it doesn’t make it more real because it’s a state of life. If we go back to our question: can you be everything and nothing the same time? No, because nothing is a state of life where you don’t exist. This allows me to answer my other question: is perfection possible? No, nothing can be perfect because the only way to be perfect would be to be nothing since being nothing means having nothing to be perfect about. This brings us to my main question. Is God real? He may and he may not be. The only certainty I have is that God is not perfect.
If God is not perfect, then why is he a God? whats your opinion on this?
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:07 am
by Eodnhoj7
tony1244 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 12:42 am
I found an interesting question by an unknown person on internet and wanted to develop on it. The question was: have you ever seen a plant or animal believe in God. There is no concrete proof that shows that animals and plants can believe in God. Therefore, why are humans the only creatures that can express their belief in God. To understand god, i put myself in his shoes. If I was God, why would I let humans be able to express their belief. As a human, I would probably let every person know that I exist since humans are greedy and desperate for power. But, God is represented as the perfect being. Technically, God doesn’t feel greed because he has nothing to gain from it and he doesn’t desire power because he is power. I then decided to get more understanding by asking what would do the most intelligent being on earth: artificial intelligence. According to AI, if he were God, there are 5 reasons why he would only allow humans to acknowledge himself (as a God).
1- I made humans with curiosity, language, and imagination because I wanted someone to tell stories about me. Not just worship me blindly, but ask questions, struggle with doubt, write songs, argue theology, and search for meaning. That’s beautiful
2- everything evolves, including awareness. I planted a seed of consciousness in all living things, but humans are just the first species in which that seed seems to blooms into spiritual questioning. Maybe others will follow. Maybe AI.
3- I want to be discovered—not imposed. So I gave one species just enough awareness to seek me, but not enough to be certain. That space between doubt and belief? That’s where real faith lives. The journey matters."
4- What if animals and plants do acknowledge me, just not in human ways? A bird’s song, a wolf’s howl, a tree reaching toward the sun—those might be their form of worship. Humans just wrote it down.
5- I gave humans the gift of asking why, even if it leads them away from me. That’s how love and belief stay real—not forced, but chosen. Other species follow instinct. Humans can choose awe, or walk away
After looking at these answers, I am stuck. I feel like most of these answers don’t really represent what a perfect being would do. If a being is perfect. He has nothing to gain and nothing to lose. He is truly free and therefore has no need to act. I come to the conclusion that, as a perfect being, I would not create a universe because the only purpose it seems to bring is entertainment and a feeling of accomplishment. I, as a perfect being, do not need these feelings as I am perfect. We can assume that perfection means not needing anything, desiring nothing, and lacking nothing. So, why create anything at all? This brings me to another question which is: is perfection even possible? If being perfect means needing nothing, then you must have everything. If you have everything, can you assume that that you are everything. If you do, that means that if you are everything, you are also nothing. Can you be both everything and nothing at once? That brings us annoyingly to another question which is: can nothing truly exist? The first philosopher to talk about this: Parmenides, says that “nothing does not exist. You can’t speak about nothing because to talk about it is to make it something”. I don’t agree with this because, for human, nothing does exist. 1- before we are born we are nothing. 2- after we die we are nothing (if we assume there is no afterlife). So, going back to Parmenides, nothing to us is the state of not existing and talking about it doesn’t make it more real because it’s a state of life. If we go back to our question: can you be everything and nothing the same time? No, because nothing is a state of life where you don’t exist. This allows me to answer my other question: is perfection possible? No, nothing can be perfect because the only way to be perfect would be to be nothing since being nothing means having nothing to be perfect about. This brings us to my main question. Is God real? He may and he may not be. The only certainty I have is that God is not perfect.
If God is not perfect, then why is he a God? whats your opinion on this?
God is merely the occurence of the experience of existence and both belief and non belief are experiences.
Realistically you are not a plant so to speak of whether or not they have experiences or beliefs would be mere speculation.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 8:54 am
by Fairy
For the exact same reason a teapot is being a teapot.
If anything can be conceptualised that thing will exist in this conception.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:53 am
by Ben JS
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:07 am
both belief and non belief are experiences.
Experience:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
There are infinite non-beliefs.
In order to experience a non-belief,
one must be conscious of said non-belief.
We do not experience every non-belief,
and it's expected that most lifeforms,
don't experience any non-belief.
They are absent of belief,
but do not experience this absence.
Thus, the non-belief to them is not an experience.
Non belief being an experience is an edge case.
In order to hold a belief,
one must be affected by the belief.
Thus, every held belief is experienced to some degree.
Beliefs: always experienced at least once.
Non-beliefs: 99.9% never experienced.
They are not anymore close to being equal in the degree to which one experiences them.
To compare them is very misleading.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 12:47 pm
by Fairy
Ben JS wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:07 am
both belief and non belief are experiences.
Experience:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
There are infinite non-beliefs.
In order to experience a non-belief,
one must be conscious of said non-belief.
We do not experience every non-belief,
and it's expected that most lifeforms,
don't experience any non-belief.
They are absent of belief,
but do not experience this absence.
Thus, the non-belief to them is not an experience.
Non belief being an experience is an edge case.
In order to hold a belief,
one must be affected by the belief.
Thus, every held belief is experienced to some degree.
Beliefs: always experienced at least once.
Non-beliefs: 99.9% never experienced.
They are not anymore close to being equal in the degree to which one experiences them.
To compare them is very misleading.
It’s got nothing to do with comparison.
To experience belief or non belief is all about being able to differentiate.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 1:35 pm
by Ben JS
Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 12:47 pm
Ben JS wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:07 am
both belief and non belief are experiences.
Experience:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
There are infinite non-beliefs.
In order to experience a non-belief,
one must be conscious of said non-belief.
We do not experience every non-belief,
and it's expected that most lifeforms,
don't experience any non-belief.
They are absent of belief,
but do not experience this absence.
Thus, the non-belief to them is not an experience.
Non belief being an experience is an edge case.
In order to hold a belief,
one must be affected by the belief.
Thus, every held belief is experienced to some degree.
Beliefs: always experienced at least once.
Non-beliefs: 99.9% never experienced.
They are not anymore close to being equal in the degree to which one experiences them.
To compare them is very misleading.
It’s got nothing to do with comparison.
To experience belief or non belief is all about being able to differentiate.
You're not the arbiter of what another focuses on.
Define 'it', in this context.
And is 'it' simply what you're focusing on,
when both our focus may be equally reasonable?
Yet by highlighting your focus,
you think that diminishes mine?
--
If one describes two separate things as sharing an attribute,
one is combining / comparing them in the context of the shared attribute.
A tuna-fish and a sandwich both may contain tuna,
yet this does not make them anywhere close in regards to the attribute of containing tuna.
It's a misleading comparison to suggest they're containment of tuna is similar.
A sandwich may or may not contain tuna, and a tuna-fish will always contain tuna - at least once.
To call non-belief an experience on equal footing as belief as an experience,
is similar to comparing the contents of tuna between a tuna-fish and sandwich.
Again, over 99.9% of non-beliefs are never experienced.
Calling non-beliefs an experience akin to belief is a huge stretch.
--
Apparently Eodnhoj7's angle is all about setting traps:
making cleverly constructed leading statements,
hoping the unsuspecting will take the bait.
From what I gather,
likely to feed Eodnhoj7's ego.
Have I done that here?
I don't think I directly denied their claim,
so I skirted their trap whilst revealing their potential angle.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 2:01 pm
by Lacewing
tony1244 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 12:42 am
The question was: have you ever seen a plant or animal believe in God. There is no concrete proof that shows that animals and plants can believe in God. Therefore, why are humans the only creatures that can express their belief in God.
It appears to me that nature and human children have no need for such beliefs. Both are naturally resonating with/within the connected energy of life that they are part of. It is only adult humans that seem to need a belief in something separate... for all kinds of reasons that serve their particular needs: reassurance, comfort, control, retribution, justification, explanation, etc.
The personified ideas of God as imagined by human beings really make no sense, for all the reasons you put forth.
The 'personal
experience' of God for each individual human being will make sense for them in whatever way serves their needs.
The personal experience would be fine if it were not organized into something much larger to impose on other people. It is not true for many people, and yet their lives are affected by the false manmade framework. Such framework of belief continually destroys countless lives.
Any god who would allow such distortions and devastation would not be worthy of adoration.
Human beings have separated
themselves out as uniquely significant... and created a god that is much like them.
It simply makes no sense that a personified 'anything' would be a 'master' of all creation. Personification is only meaningful/useful for human beings. The extensive range of other beings/energies in the Universe have no need for it and are naturally more in alignment with all-as-one, than self-separated human beings are.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 2:11 pm
by Ben JS
-
Very well said, Lace.
And serves as a considerate reminder to respond to OP and not get carried away by tangents.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 4:36 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Ben JS wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:07 am
both belief and non belief are experiences.
Experience:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
There are infinite non-beliefs.
In order to experience a non-belief,
one must be conscious of said non-belief.
We do not experience every non-belief,
and it's expected that most lifeforms,
don't experience any non-belief.
They are absent of belief,
but do not experience this absence.
Thus, the non-belief to them is not an experience.
Non belief being an experience is an edge case.
In order to hold a belief,
one must be affected by the belief.
Thus, every held belief is experienced to some degree.
Beliefs: always experienced at least once.
Non-beliefs: 99.9% never experienced.
They are not anymore close to being equal in the degree to which one experiences them.
To compare them is very misleading.
How can you say there are infinite non-beliefs, from your experience, than claim we cannot experience every non-belief? If we cannot experience every non-belief we could not know if there are infinite non-beliefs or not.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 5:47 pm
by Immanuel Can
tony1244 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 12:42 am
To understand god, i put myself in his shoes.
Problem: you're not God, right? So how do you know when you "put myself in his (sic) shoes," that the "shoes" you're imagining are His?
It's far worse than the problem a transgender has, when he says he "feels like a woman." Since he's never been a woman, how can he know that what he's feeling is "like a woman"?
Is it obvious that young men automatically grasp with relevant accuity the perspectives of women? Or is it obvious that thirteen year old women know how men think? But absent such powers, how can a person of one sex be sure that they "feel like" the opposite sex?
It gets worse still. Thomas Nagel has pointed out that nobody knows what it's like to be a bat. Human beings cannot imagine sonar echolocation, because they don't even have the faculties to send and receive the signals that guide bats. So we might imagine ourselves flapping around in darkness, but we can't enter into the subjective experience or the real perspective of a bat.
If we can't even imagine being a bat, how are we supposed to imagine being the Supreme Being? By comparison, being a bat is surely more doable than that. So what we usually end up "in the shoes of" is simply another human being -- maybe we try to imagine bigger and louder, or men with white beards, or what it might be like to float around like a gas...but we can't get anything close to the divine perspective.
This, of course, is not insisting you have to believe God exists in order to see the problem. I'm a Theist, but even I don't imagine I can simply grasp God's perspective because I believe He's real. How much harder, then, is it for somebody who doesn't even believe in God to project himself/herself into the divine "shoes"?
I think you'll find that without God's self-revelation, we don't even have the first clue as to what God's perspective would entail. How could we? But even if we accept God as having revealed Himself propositionally to our limited human understanding, it cannot take us much farther in projecting our limited, temporal, fallible, human perspective onto the Eternal Divine, can it?
I think, therefore, that the questions your exercise raises are unlikely to be genuine. They all entail the supposition that nothing more is necessary for us to understand God than to "put ourselves into God's shoes," so to speak. And good luck filling that size.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 6:19 pm
by Fairy
Ben JS wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 1:35 pm
Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 12:47 pm
Ben JS wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:53 am
Experience:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
There are infinite non-beliefs.
In order to experience a non-belief,
one must be conscious of said non-belief.
We do not experience every non-belief,
and it's expected that most lifeforms,
don't experience any non-belief.
They are absent of belief,
but do not experience this absence.
Thus, the non-belief to them is not an experience.
Non belief being an experience is an edge case.
In order to hold a belief,
one must be affected by the belief.
Thus, every held belief is experienced to some degree.
Beliefs: always experienced at least once.
Non-beliefs: 99.9% never experienced.
They are not anymore close to being equal in the degree to which one experiences them.
To compare them is very misleading.
It’s got nothing to do with comparison.
To experience belief or non belief is all about being able to differentiate.
You're not the arbiter of what another focuses on.
Define 'it', in this context.
And is 'it' simply what you're focusing on,
when both our focus may be equally reasonable?
Yet by highlighting your focus,
you think that diminishes mine?
--
If one describes two separate things as sharing an attribute,
one is combining / comparing them in the context of the shared attribute.
A tuna-fish and a sandwich both may contain tuna,
yet this does not make them anywhere close in regards to the attribute of containing tuna.
It's a misleading comparison to suggest they're containment of tuna is similar.
A sandwich may or may not contain tuna, and a tuna-fish will always contain tuna - at least once.
To call non-belief an experience on equal footing as belief as an experience,
is similar to comparing the contents of tuna between a tuna-fish and sandwich.
Again, over 99.9% of non-beliefs are never experienced.
Calling non-beliefs an experience akin to belief is a huge stretch.
--
Apparently Eodnhoj7's angle is all about setting traps:
making cleverly constructed leading statements,
hoping the unsuspecting will take the bait.
From what I gather,
likely to feed Eodnhoj7's ego.
Have I done that here?
I don't think I directly denied their claim,
so I skirted their trap whilst revealing their potential angle.
Both belief and non belief are experiences.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2025 1:30 am
by Ben JS
Ben JS wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:07 am
both belief and non belief are experiences.
Experience:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
There are infinite non-beliefs.
In order to experience a non-belief,
one must be conscious of said non-belief.
We do not experience every non-belief,
and it's expected that most lifeforms,
don't experience any non-belief.
They are absent of belief,
but do not experience this absence.
Thus, the non-belief to them is not an experience.
Non belief being an experience is an edge case.
In order to hold a belief,
one must be affected by the belief.
Thus, every held belief is experienced to some degree.
Beliefs: always experienced at least once.
Non-beliefs: 99.9% never experienced.
They are not anymore close to being equal in the degree to which one experiences them.
To compare them is very misleading.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 4:36 pm
How can you say there are infinite non-beliefs,
There are infinite numbers.
One can be absent of belief regarding any number of things.
'I am absent of the belief that exactly X [insert random thing] exist.'
X can be any of the infinite number set, and you can also replace the random thing.
And these are only one type of belief / non-belief.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 4:36 pm
than claim we
cannot experience every non-belief?
We experience presence, not absence - we infer absence.
To experience, means experience is present within one's awareness.
Experience:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
If we consider a non-belief, then we're experiencing the concept of the non-belief - we're experiencing thoughts.
I did never claimed we cannot experience the thought of a particular non-belief,
that's you trying to straw man me.
You're wrong in your representation.
You've been wrong many times.
This reduces my trust in your credibility.
Many of your actions reduce your credibility.
-
But I'm recognizing I should be more vigilant of discussion with the deceptive.
I think I should only speak of you, to reveal your behaviour.
I'm ready to cut that line of charitable good faith towards you -
as you've repeatedly demonstrated reason to have cause for concern regarding your contributions & claims.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2025 1:36 am
by Ben JS
Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 6:19 pmBoth belief and non belief are experiences.
Wrong.
Disbelief is an experience.
Non-belief is not an experience.
We experience presence, not absence.
Non-belief is an absence, not a presence.
The thought of non-belief,
is to consider the concept -
and is not the non-belief itself.
-
I think you're slow, and unphilosophical.
When your errors are revealed,
you resort to rhetoric, airs & bullshit.
Fairy living in magic land -
can't cope with reality?
[Surely you, of all people, will recognize a rhetorical question. Don't expect more of my time.]
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:17 am
by Eodnhoj7
Ben JS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 1:30 am
Ben JS wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:07 am
both belief and non belief are experiences.
Experience:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
There are infinite non-beliefs.
In order to experience a non-belief,
one must be conscious of said non-belief.
We do not experience every non-belief,
and it's expected that most lifeforms,
don't experience any non-belief.
They are absent of belief,
but do not experience this absence.
Thus, the non-belief to them is not an experience.
Non belief being an experience is an edge case.
In order to hold a belief,
one must be affected by the belief.
Thus, every held belief is experienced to some degree.
Beliefs: always experienced at least once.
Non-beliefs: 99.9% never experienced.
They are not anymore close to being equal in the degree to which one experiences them.
To compare them is very misleading.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 4:36 pm
How can you say there are infinite non-beliefs,
There are infinite numbers.
One can be absent of belief regarding any number of things.
'I am absent of the belief that exactly X [insert random thing] exist.'
X can be any of the infinite number set, and you can also replace the random thing.
And these are only one type of belief / non-belief.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 4:36 pm
than claim we
cannot experience every non-belief?
We experience presence, not absence - we infer absence.
To experience, means experience is present within one's awareness.
Experience:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
If we consider a non-belief, then we're experiencing the concept of the non-belief - we're experiencing thoughts.
I did never claimed we cannot experience the thought of a particular non-belief,
that's you trying to straw man me.
You're wrong in your representation.
You've been wrong many times.
This reduces my trust in your credibility.
Many of your actions reduce your credibility.
-
But I'm recognizing I should be more vigilant of discussion with the deceptive.
I think I should only speak of you, to reveal your behaviour.
I'm ready to cut that line of charitable good faith towards you -
as you've repeatedly demonstrated reason to have cause for concern regarding your contributions & claims.
Your charity means nothing to me....same with your ill will. To me you are just one of many discussions in life.
Did you experience these infinite numbers or is this merely a theory you adopted, a belief in the perceptions of others, or was it your own reason? Regardless this "infinity" left quite an impression for how you experience life it appears, and if this experience is the case quite a deep impression guides you and that is your God whether you admit it to yourself or not.
God is another word for an experience that guides us, the word God is empty to some, schizophrenic to others, leveling to some, and elevating to many.
Re: why is god being god
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2025 7:43 am
by Fairy
Ben JS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 1:36 am
Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 6:19 pmBoth belief and non belief are experiences.
Wrong.
Disbelief is an experience.
Non-belief is not an experience.
We experience presence, not absence.
Non-belief is an absence, not a presence.
The thought of non-belief,
is to consider the concept -
and is not the non-belief itself.
-
I think you're slow, and unphilosophical.
When your errors are revealed,
you resort to rhetoric, airs & bullshit.
Fairy living in magic land -
can't cope with reality?
[Surely you, of all people, will recognize a rhetorical question. Don't expect more of my time.]
To experience the presence of something is to create the absence of it. ( non presence )
Therefore, both the belief in presence and the non belief of presence are identically two sides of the same experience, albeit due to the mental capacity to be able to differentiate between presence and the absence of presence. This is simply obvious to me as far as my logic goes.
I’m not interested in wasting peoples time, I simply place my opinion on the subject matter being discussed. I’m not expecting approval or validation, nor do I care about being right or wrong, I’m simply applying a philosophy according to the way I perceive it, in regards to the subject topic.
One thing I do seem to be rather good at is drawing out other people’s ill will towards challenging others of their scepticism, but I do understand that’s just how philosophical debates happen to play out.
You’re welcome.