God doesn’t sleep.

[Someone here]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes, for example, how would you understand evilness and God will?

God sees no evil. God is unconditional goodness.
God created evil precisely because God is absolutely good. If God did not create evil, He would not be infinitely Good, because the evil things are longing to be created and brought into existence. They suffer from staying in nothingness .Therefore,out of his all-encompassing goodness, He created them.

Evil is a potential. God makes all potential things actual precisely because his goodness  and unlimited creating ability encompass everything.

God created pain , evil , suffering.. because he is infinitely good .

Edited 22 hours ago by Someone here

[Ziran]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

That would mean that finite beings are created by God will but acts against god will 

Yes.  It's necessary for an absolutely infinite being to "create" finite-beings, plural, somethings from nothing.  There's 2 layers of abstraction.  That's what necessitates 'defiance' aka 'crossing into another's territory without consent'. Most neglect the necessity of those two hops.  Here's what it looks like broken out:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Premise: 

Suppose there is a God, a being, with benevolent motives, intentions, etc, that is also simultaneously infinite.  What would this God do?  Find another, to nourish, to nurture, to cultivate.

Premise cont'd: 

If so, then, what would a God with omni-benevolent motives do?  Find others, plural, to nurture so that they can nurture themself AND others.

Point of Fact:

An absolutely infinite being is necessarily alone, because any and all are subsumed and nullified on their approach with one and only one exception:  Not-God, "Chaos-and-Void".  This union of chaos-and-void are the anti-thesis of "absolutely infinite omni-benevolence".

Conclusion:

If there is an absolutely infinite omni-benevolent being, then, it necessarily must create an "other" which is the anti-thesis of itself, then, use this as a layer of abstraction, between itself, and the "others".  This abstraction permits this theoretical being an opportunity to share itself, its infinite qualities, without nullifying and subsuming ( re-assimilating) the "others", back into their origin.

Infinite -source << Other >> others

In this arrangement, the "others" are not proximal to their source.  They need to traverse "upstream" so-to-speak crossing through nearly infinite hostility-and-indifference.  Rising and striking, simultaneously, individual souls are sinking their metaphorical fangs into the metaphorical face of God, and, God is metaphorically turning the other cheek. 

This forbearance is necessary.  If God were ever to eliminate evil, in all of its forms, then there can never be any "others", plural, to be nurtured by God and to nurture each other.  All that is possible, lacking the "oppositional force" , the "rising-and-striking", the root of evil, would be a singular infinite being nurturing one other which is the anti-thesis of itself.  In this config, no borders need to be crossed for vitality to be received from the source.  No evil is needed.  Just containment of the other.  But once "others", plural, are considered necessary, and they are for omni-benevolence, then there must be a purely evil force, trespassing and taking with no remorse.
 

Edited 21 hours ago by Ziran
formatting

[Breakingthewall]

@Ziran

It seems you don't understand that a god who creates finite beings would have to do so from within himself. Therefore, it would already have those beings within himself and would have no reason to create them.

Furthermore, being infinite, he would have already done so an infinite number of times, and nothing would compel him to take any action because he would already be complete within himself.

The god you imagine is not a god; it is reality itself, and it lacks intention. It simply is and manifests itself in possibilities. There is no one behind the scenes; this, now, is reality, and it flows upon itself because it's inevitable, and possibilities arises because are possible. 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

God sees no evil. God is unconditional goodness.
God created evil precisely because God is absolutely good. If God did not create evil, He would not be infinitely Good, because the evil things are longing to be created and brought into existence. They suffer from staying in nothingness .Therefore,out of his all-encompassing goodness, He created them.

Evil is a potential. God makes all potential things actual precisely because his goodness  and unlimited creating ability encompass everything.

God created pain , evil , suffering.. because he is infinitely good .

Why God would do that? Because he is good? Sounds bit strange, like a god who has good feelings, like a person, and has plans. Plans for what? He already did infinite plans right?

[Someone here]

@Breakingthewall 

19 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Why God would do that? Because he is good? Sounds bit strange, like a god who has good feelings, like a person, and has plans. Plans for what? He already did infinite plans right?

good questions.

God is not a human-like entity residing in the heavens . 
God in its essence is beyond comprehension.

however , God exists and  is conscious, intelligent , wise , good ,omnipotent.

imagine evil . Think of this evil potential possibility : a child is going to be born with bone cancer and undergoes chemotherapy and suffers excruciating pain for 5 years and then eventually dies . And his parents are messed for good . this actually happens in this world we live in , and much worse . 

imagine god thinking of that possibility before creating it :”should I create it or should I not ?”

that possibility wants to come into existence. Because god is all good and all loving ,He will create this possibility. Because he loves all possibilities and he will create them . 
 
read the Sufi Ibn Arabi .

[Breakingthewall]

59 minutes ago, Someone here said:

imagine god thinking of that possibility before creating it :”should I create it or should I not ?”

that possibility wants to come into existence.

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

 

If that possibility wants to come to existence there is not a god deciding if it should be or not, if always that god loves any possibility that is possible, then that god is not necessary, all the possibilities possible will be, then there is not God creating them, just possibilities happening because are possible 

[Someone here]

10 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

If that possibility wants to come to existence there is not a god deciding if it should be or not, if always that god loves any possibility that is possible, then that god is not necessary, all the possibilities possible will be, then there is not God creating them, just possibilities happening because are possible 

A possibility before being actualized or materialized is pure abstraction . It would not have the ability to come into existence on its own . Something has to actualize it . What ?

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

A possibility before being actualized or materialized is pure abstraction . It would not have the ability to come into existence on its own . Something has to actualize it . What ?

The inevitable flow of reality manifested in endless change is enough to actualize any possibility that is possible. The creation and the creator are the same, it's just the reality happening. 

Edited 19 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The inevitable flow of reality manifested in endless change is enough to actualize any possibility that is possible. The creation and the creator are the same, it's just the reality happening. 

Which “reality “ ?

there is still no reality according to you . We are talking from ground zero , from scratch .
you claim the possibilities,which are pure abstractions , come into being spontaneously because of “the inevitable flow of reality “ ,while we still have no reality for these possibilities to come in or from .

The reality is god .

[Breakingthewall]

49 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Which “reality “ ?

there is still no reality according to you . We are talking from ground zero , from scratch .
you claim the possibilities,which are pure abstractions , come into being spontaneously because of “the inevitable flow of reality “ ,while we still have no reality for these possibilities to come in or from .

The reality is god .

The reality is the absence of limits that is, because nothing limits it. The fact of being manifest as relative change or becoming because the absence of becoming is not. So the becoming is, and this becoming is this, now. Totally direct without boss who organizes. It's you existing interconnected with all the possibilities that are possible. But beyond the form you are the fact of being, that's unlimited. You can open yourself to this alive reality now. In fact it's quite simple, but it's bad explained. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Ziran]

19 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

It seems you don't understand that a god who creates finite beings would have to do so from within himself. Therefore, it would already have those beings within himself and would have no reason to create them.

That's precisely what I described.  The nested chain is like a set of bubbles-within-bubbles within God itself.  See below.  

 

Those beings are "already there" because there are two layers of abstraction between themself and their source of vitality. 

Maybe think of it this way?  Lacking the abstraction the bubbles pop.  Another popular analogy:  without the shells, plural, separating the "others" from their "source", the others "dissipate" into the source like water drops into a vast endless sea.

19 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Furthermore, being infinite, he would have already done so an infinite number of times, and nothing would compel him to take any action because he would already be complete within himself.

100% yes.  All of it, the abstraction of the anti-thesis from the source and the corresponding abstraction of others from the anti-thesis, and, the rising-and-striking of individual souls, and their adhesion to the source, and their suckling, and the flowing of vitality.   And.   The alternative flowing nested chain of energetic principles from others are omni-present and concurrent.  All of it is "NOW" for the eternal-infinite-one.

Regardless, multiplicity necessarily requires two layers of abstraction if the source intends to be omni-benevolent.  My position and reasoning are clear?  Even if there's disagreement on the rest

19 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

The god you imagine is not a god; it is reality itself, and it lacks intention. It simply is and manifests itself in possibilities.

Technically.  No, that is literally the god you are imagining.  The one I'm imagining cannot possibly lack intention, because, the most stable arrangement is God-and-Other.  Because there is multiplicity, then, God necessarily has intent.  Further, it cannot be a wholly malevolent God.  If it were then it would never tolerate sharing itself with an Other.

What I'm saying is:  in order for multiplicity to exist, if the source is infinite, then, there is necessarily an oppositional force involved.  This solves the problem of evil, because, the problem of evil asserts:  There can never be an agent, who is rationally deemed "good" if that agent tolerates evil when they have the power and knowledge to prevent it.  The "problem" in the Problem of Evil is an accusation of incoherence.  "That God is incoherent, contradictory nonsense."  Then the topic shifts to unliftable-rocks.  ( Which is a different challenge, but also asserts incoherence ).

Because, this God, the one I'm actually imagining, cannot be indifferent, and cannot be completely malicious, then, it's not a problem to talk about the Will of this God.  It can be spoken about because, this God is necessarily at least somewhat benevolent.  That means a human heart-and-mind, a psyche, which is also at least somewhat benevolent, can approach a resonance with this God's will and their own.

Please remember?  Your original objection? ( correct me? ) is that a human cannot discuss God's will.  I'm saying, "Yes we can, and here's why."

1)  God's will can be defined.  Like I had said, there's ten attributes configured in a nearly endless nested chain.  Yes, one within the other, that's the nesting.  And eventually, yes, if one traces it all the way to its zenith, God is all alone.  That means the nearly infinite nested chain of "God's will manifesting" is happening within God itself.  Like the city of Atlantis in an "endless sea of God", there's a bubble, surrounded on all sides by God itself.

2)  Many firmly assert, that there cannot be an Omni-Benevolent, Eternal, Omnipotent, and Omniscient agent simply because evil exists.  As I've shown, that's not true.  If God is absolutely literally infinite, and omni-benevolent, then, there must be evil, contrary to the many who object on grounds of incoherence.

19 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

There is no one behind the scenes; this, now, is reality, and it flows upon itself because it's inevitable, and possibilities arises because are possible. 

Denial isn't convincing.

Here's how I can convince myself that God must have intention.  If god has no intention then evil necessarily cannot exist.  Am I wrong?

If evil exists, then God must have an intention, otherwise yes, you're right, the most likely conclusion is one of optimistic nihilism.  

?  Do you have any other objections to discussing God's will that haven't been addressed by myself or others ?

Edited 1 hour ago by Ziran
formatting

[Ziran]

18 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

f that possibility wants to come to existence there is not a god deciding if it should be or not,

Yes, and more.

If God is literally infinite then it possesses any and all. It's a static set of nearly infinite events.   Whether or not these events are manifesting is best described as a timeline.  The manner in which the events are arranged, and the corresponding ambiance of each event is variable and permits agency, intention, and nuance.