Can a computer be God?

[Beauty]

Point is that in the created the creator can be, also the creator can use the created as in using a pen, and so forth.

Your point is invalid. The creator cannot be in it's creation because they are inseparably one and the same no thing.. aka oneness. No thing created oneness, it's an illusion, any creation is therefore just an image of the imageless. A reflection of invisible light/energy. No logically coherent description exists by which a thing can create itself.

The artist is not in the painting. The painting is in the artist. The artist can never be found in the painting, although the painting does appear to be an apparent evidence of a creator, but the creator can never be found...it's all smoke and mirrors... just try find the beginning of you and there you will see your creator...you can't do...that's because there is no you, you is only and ever one, aka zero.

The mind cannot handle that truth. But it is the peace that passes all understanding.

You said above, ".......because they are inseparably one and the same no thing.. aka oneness."

If you say creator and creation is one, then what is creation, for there could be no creation as it would be one with the creator. So what creation would you be talking about, and for that matter what creator even would you be talking about, for who would know about any creation or creator as it would all be one?

[Dontaskme]

Point is that in the created the creator can be, also the creator can use the created as in using a pen, and so forth.

Your point is invalid. The creator cannot be in it's creation because they are inseparably one and the same no thing.. aka oneness. No thing created oneness, it's an illusion, any creation is therefore just an image of the imageless. A reflection of invisible light/energy. No logically coherent description exists by which a thing can create itself.

The artist is not in the painting. The painting is in the artist. The artist can never be found in the painting, although the painting does appear to be an apparent evidence of a creator, but the creator can never be found...it's all smoke and mirrors... just try find the beginning of you and there you will see your creator...you can't do...that's because there is no you, you is only and ever one, aka zero.

The mind cannot handle that truth. But it is the peace that passes all understanding.

You said above, ".......because they are inseparably one and the same no thing.. aka oneness."

If you say creator and creation is one, then what is creation, for there could be no creation as it would be one with the creator. So what creation would you be talking about, and for that matter what creator even would you be talking about, for who would know about any creation or creator as it would all be one?

Creation is something that is assumed to exist. So answer this...who makes that assumption? can you find the one who makes that assumption? who knows it exists?

[Dontaskme]

You said above, ".......because they are inseparably one and the same no thing.. aka oneness."

If you say creator and creation is one, then what is creation, for there could be no creation as it would be one with the creator. So what creation would you be talking about, and for that matter what creator even would you be talking about, for who would know about any creation or creator as it would all be one?

Dear Beauty.

Creation is an appearance, it's an illusion, it has no reality, it only appears to have reality for a nano second when a thought identifies with it, and then it's gone. We recreate what's already gone, we recreate what's dead by re-tracing it back through memory, we re-act it, and this gives the illusion of continuity of an assumed living entity in the here and now.... but there is no entity in the here and now because it's unborn, any entity is identification with a thought borrowed from the past of memory, which is dead....there is no such thing as an entity living in the present moment of now, because it's uncreated, unborn. And yet from that unborn state, thoughts are born. So the unborn is constantly giving birth to itself via memory...the now can only borrow from the past because the future had not yet happened, the future is always and ever this unborn present presenting itself as a memory of past.

There is no where in space awareness aka YOU ..that solid actual things can reside PERMANENTLY, so no thing is permanent. Everything is a mentally created dreamscape...and just like all dreams they appear and fade into the no thing from where they came.. that No thing is YOU ..AKA AWARENESS

All that's known with any certainty is this immediate moment, this aware moment now - this silent still uncreated presence or the eternal now...aka source of all that appears to be and not be.

All that appears to be arises and falls away from that singularity awareness one without a second.

What is created aka what appears, disappears almost in the exact same moment, so what appears to be created has actually fallen away, it is no more, it is past, it is dead. But that in which creation appears is the real you, which does not fall away, it's always here uncreated, it's this silent uncreated immediate moment now that's always a blank space - a void. That's who we are. We are the unborn silent presence aka the witness of all that comes and goes. The witnessing present always has to be a constant, it's like the screen behind the movie. The movie cannot function without the screen, it's dependant upon the screen, it has no light of it's own, it's ever one with the screen... so creation is not something independent in and of itself with it's own light.. it's one with it's creator which is this ever uncreated now empty space, therefore any creation is an illusion, because creation is dying in the exact same moment it is being born...it's an appearance only.

We the witness of the movie are not in the movie, because we the witness always are, we never change, while the movie is constantly changing, so we can't be in the movie, aka the creation... the creation comes and goes in us, but is not us. What do I mean by this .. notice that which never changes while the body is changing, and notice everything around the witnessing awareness changing...while that which is never changing is the awareness of change. The awareness does not change, age or move.It's this ever present silent still uncreated singular point being, always being.

I'm using the words, US - WE - YOU- ME - I ...as conceptual referential pointers - pointing you back to your original face which is the uncreated unborn now in which everything is appearing and disappearing in you, while you never moved or changed.

Creation is like frozen thought in space and time.

Awareness is no thing aware of each and every thought. All knowing.

Both awareness and thought are invisible. The invisible is life, the visible is death.

[Beauty]

The artist is not in the painting. The painting is in the artist. The artist can never be found in the painting, although the painting does appear to be an apparent evidence of a creator, but the creator can never be found...it's all smoke and mirrors... just try find the beginning of you and there you will see your creator...you can't do...that's because there is no you, you is only and ever one, aka zero.

No, the artist is in the painting, he's all over it, as much as the painting was/is in him(the degree of it, not actually). If you say otherwise, then the creator and created cannot be one by any token, by this I don't mean to say they are one, they are not of course, but you keep insisting that they are one. If I make something, I am not that ever, but something of me is in there. And you say that created and creator is one. So decide, what stance do you want to take? My stance is that creator is not the actual creation, but he/she can be there in it, using it and so forth, like we make the silver screen, and then we are there acting, we make movie theaters and we are there in them, we make universities, we are there to study{WE ARE NOT THE UNIVERSITY}. There are no confusions, reason being that whatever I make reflects my characteristics, and so I can be found in whatever I make, my creation, it's all there - spread out. For example if I am a good person and have resources, I will make good things. Point being that even though God(Creator) is not actually his creation, he can be found out - his characteristics, through his creation.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The artist is not in the painting. The painting is in the artist. The artist can never be found in the painting, although the painting does appear to be an apparent evidence of a creator, but the creator can never be found...it's all smoke and mirrors... just try find the beginning of you and there you will see your creator...you can't do...that's because there is no you, you is only and ever one, aka zero.

No, the artist is in the painting, he's all over it, as much as the painting was/is in him(the degree of it, not actually). If you say otherwise, then the creator and created cannot be one by any token, by this I don't mean to say they are one, they are not of course, but you keep insisting that they are one. If I make something, I am not that ever, but something of me is in there. And you say that created and creator is one. So decide, what stance do you want to take? My stance is that creator is not the actual creation, but he/she can be there in it, using it and so forth, like we make the silver screen, and then we are there acting, we make movie theaters and we are there in them, we make universities, we are there to study{WE ARE NOT THE UNIVERSITY}. There are no confusions, reason being that whatever I make reflects my characteristics, and so I can be found in whatever I make, my creation, it's all there - spread out. For example if I am a good person and have resources, I will make good things. Point being that even though God(Creator) is not actually his creation, he can be found out - his characteristics, through his creation.

When people resort to metaphor they can say about anything, even opposing views and they can both appear right, but in effect they are both literally wrong.
It is a simple and obvious enough fact that the painting and the artist are not the same thing. It follows from this that neither the painting is in the artist, nor the artist in the painting.
Reality is a process, and so in some sense, before the painting is made it is in the artist, when the process of painting is completed it is no longer in the artist, yet there are indelible elements of style and meaning of the artist that are in the painting.
However as time passes, the artist changes, leaving behind the ossified evidence of his passing. Thus in no important sense is the artist in the painting, and the artist in the painting is dead, leaving behind a record of what the artist was capable of at the times of creation. At no time can the painting change significantly, except in the minds of the observers, but the artist never stays still, until death when for he too change ceases.

With objects of (so-called) "creation", each item is also a process and ever changing. But are self changing. They are so clearly not the recipients of continuous creation, but of evolution. The artist, if there ever was one, which I doubt is long dead, and since the objects of creation are ever changing, nothing of any kind be said of the 'creator' from examining living things.

[Dontaskme]

The artist is not in the painting. The painting is in the artist. The artist can never be found in the painting, although the painting does appear to be an apparent evidence of a creator, but the creator can never be found...it's all smoke and mirrors... just try find the beginning of you and there you will see your creator...you can't do...that's because there is no you, you is only and ever one, aka zero.

No, the artist is in the painting, he's all over it, as much as the painting was/is in him(the degree of it, not actually). If you say otherwise, then the creator and created cannot be one by any token, by this I don't mean to say they are one, they are not of course, but you keep insisting that they are one. If I make something, I am not that ever, but something of me is in there. And you say that created and creator is one. So decide, what stance do you want to take? My stance is that creator is not the actual creation, but he/she can be there in it, using it and so forth, like we make the silver screen, and then we are there acting, we make movie theaters and we are there in them, we make universities, we are there to study{WE ARE NOT THE UNIVERSITY}. There are no confusions, reason being that whatever I make reflects my characteristics, and so I can be found in whatever I make, my creation, it's all there - spread out. For example if I am a good person and have resources, I will make good things. Point being that even though God(Creator) is not actually his creation, he can be found out - his characteristics, through his creation.

I see what you are saying Beauty, God aka eternal life can only be found by using the unreal Identified I to remove itself to reveal real I
But what I'm trying to show you is that even that is just an idea, it's an illusion within an illusion, a dream within a dream.

Yes, in the dream of separation for no one...One has to use a thorn to remove a thorn then throw both away to reveal God .. but it's once removed...not twice.

No other one finds God because there is only God. ..That which has never been lost cannot be found. That which is found has never been lost.

What's left when the I is used to remove I... is the I without an object aka no thing aka pure unborn uncreated everything and nothing. That's how God is found albeit illusory. You are taking what's written in the bible too literally Beauty.

God can't be found in what God manifests. What manifests is an impression, an image of the imageless, both the creator and created are empty of THING. God has definitely left the building, leaving no thing but fingerprints / footsteps...the illusion of something here that isn't actually here. There is no thing here, but illusions.

And that's why...God is ONE

The doer doing and done are one. The creator, creating and creation are one. God is. God is everywhere and all things. God is everything and nothing. God is here now, nowhere....there is no thing inside or outside of God. God is ONE.

Check it out for yourself... why you making this so complicated ?

THE WHIM CREATED THE NOTHING

Meher Baba



It is the original infinite whim which is responsible for giving Cause to the latent-all that was of the Nothing to manifest as Nothingness.

But before God exercised His original infinite whim to make manifest the latent-all that was of the Nothing, this whim of God was itself latent as the Nothing in the Everything of the infinitude of absolutely independent God in the God-Is state.

How is it then possible for the latent original infinite whim to surge in God and make manifest itself and all that is latent of the Nothing as Nothingness?

Whim after all is a whim; and, by its very nature, it is such that "why — wherefore — when" can find no place in its nature. A whim may come at any moment; it may come now or after a few months or after years, and it may not come at all.

Similarly, the original infinite whim, after all, is a whim, and too, it is the whim of God in the state of infinitude! This whim may not surge in God at all; and, if it surges, either at any moment or after thousands of years or after a million cycles, it need not be surprising.

Thus it is, that the original infinite whim of God in the state of infinitude once surged; and it surged both spontaneously and all of a sudden in absolutely independent God Who is eternally Eternal. Hence this whim, which once surged, once began the Beginning of all things in Creation.

In short, this original infinite latent whim of God in the state of infinitude, once it surged in God Who is absolutely independent, made itself manifest, and simultaneously with its manifestation, it manifested the latent all that was of the Nothing as Nothingness. Thus the whim created the Nothing.

GOD SPEAKS ... http://www.avatarmeherbaba.org/erics/origwhim.html

[Beauty]

The artist is not in the painting. The painting is in the artist. The artist can never be found in the painting, although the painting does appear to be an apparent evidence of a creator, but the creator can never be found...it's all smoke and mirrors... just try find the beginning of you and there you will see your creator...you can't do...that's because there is no you, you is only and ever one, aka zero.

When people resort to metaphor they can say about anything, even opposing views and they can both appear right, but in effect they are both literally wrong.
It is a simple and obvious enough fact that the painting and the artist are not the same thing. It follows from this that neither the painting is in the artist, nor the artist in the painting.
Reality is a process, and so in some sense, before the painting is made it is in the artist, when the process of painting is completed it is no longer in the artist, yet there are indelible elements of style and meaning of the artist that are in the painting.
However as time passes, the artist changes, leaving behind the ossified evidence of his passing. Thus in no important sense is the artist in the painting, and the artist in the painting is dead, leaving behind a record of what the artist was capable of at the times of creation. At no time can the painting change significantly, except in the minds of the observers, but the artist never stays still, until death when for he too change ceases.

With objects of (so-called) "creation", each item is also a process and ever changing. But are self changing. They are so clearly not the recipients of continuous creation, but of evolution. The artist, if there ever was one, which I doubt is long dead, and since the objects of creation are ever changing, nothing of any kind be said of the 'creator' from examining living things.

Two things - one creation and the other creator. So creator is not in the creation? How do you know there's a creator in the first place seeing the creation? I make a store, it is to MY taste, MY preference, MY thinking, MY feeling, MY understanding, MY memory and stuff, and so it reflects all those MY's. Also, I am actually sitting inside my store. Point is I am - thinking, feeling, understanding, knowledge, memory and so on, and all that is there in my creation, my creation would reflect that, otherwise would you say that I don't make things to my taste? But I would, for why would it be otherwise? So I am there in my creation, but I am not one with my creation.

I want to ask you something, how are the objects of creation changing if the creator's characteristics aren't, what would be the basis? Environment has an effect on things, but then we understand the effect of environment upon a thing as distinct from other changes done by creator himself. So the basis for change would be creator made or environment. So then examining creation, we can tell a lot about the creator, as his characteristics would be in there, even the changing characteristics would be there dependent upon the change of characteristics in the creator, and regarding the environmental changes, we would know what environment is responsible for that change.

Basically creator is seen in his/her creation. As an example: Someone makes a rude painting. How would you view the painter? In a good light? I don't think so.

[Dontaskme]

I am the consummate artist I draw upon my Imagination.

I am the consummate artist the blank canvas upon which I paint my dream.

That which appears to change never changes.

[Dontaskme]

Two things - one creation and the other creator. So creator is not in the creation? How do you know there's a creator in the first place seeing the creation?

Because the one seeing the creation is the creator in the same instant. Reality is in essence No thing thinging. If the creator was in it's creation it would be a thing, and there's no such thing as thing. There's only no thing appearing to thing.

Ultimately, 'God' is only a concept. It is an abstract name for a particular 'feature' of the one universal process, but neither this nor any other feature of the process has any actual name in Reality, and the features are not actually disconnected as 'things' in the way the names assigned to them make them seem to be.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Two things - one creation and the other creator. So creator is not in the creation? How do you know there's a creator in the first place seeing the creation? I make a store, it is to MY taste, MY preference, MY thinking, MY feeling, MY understanding, MY memory and stuff, and so it reflects all those MY's. Also, I am actually sitting inside my store. Point is I am - thinking, feeling, understanding, knowledge, memory and so on, and all that is there in my creation, my creation would reflect that, otherwise would you say that I don't make things to my taste? But I would, for why would it be otherwise? So I am there in my creation, but I am not one with my creation.

I want to ask you something, how are the objects of creation changing if the creator's characteristics aren't, what would be the basis? Environment has an effect on things, but then we understand the effect of environment upon a thing as distinct from other changes done by creator himself. So the basis for change would be creator made or environment. So then examining creation, we can tell a lot about the creator, as his characteristics would be in there, even the changing characteristics would be there dependent upon the change of characteristics in the creator, and regarding the environmental changes, we would know what environment is responsible for that change.

Basically creator is seen in his/her creation. As an example: Someone makes a rude painting. How would you view the painter? In a good light? I don't think so.

One thing. You are falsely assuming that you are witness to a creation.

A painting has a creator, but there is no need to extend that analogy to the universe. But you do, then when you do, you ignore the facts of the analogy.
You do realise this is a philosophy forum?

[Beauty]

Two things - one creation and the other creator. So creator is not in the creation? How do you know there's a creator in the first place seeing the creation? I make a store, it is to MY taste, MY preference, MY thinking, MY feeling, MY understanding, MY memory and stuff, and so it reflects all those MY's. Also, I am actually sitting inside my store. Point is I am - thinking, feeling, understanding, knowledge, memory and so on, and all that is there in my creation, my creation would reflect that, otherwise would you say that I don't make things to my taste? But I would, for why would it be otherwise? So I am there in my creation, but I am not one with my creation.

I want to ask you something, how are the objects of creation changing if the creator's characteristics aren't, what would be the basis? Environment has an effect on things, but then we understand the effect of environment upon a thing as distinct from other changes done by creator himself. So the basis for change would be creator made or environment. So then examining creation, we can tell a lot about the creator, as his characteristics would be in there, even the changing characteristics would be there dependent upon the change of characteristics in the creator, and regarding the environmental changes, we would know what environment is responsible for that change.

Basically creator is seen in his/her creation. As an example: Someone makes a rude painting. How would you view the painter? In a good light? I don't think so.

One thing. You are falsely assuming that you are witness to a creation.

A painting has a creator, but there is no need to extend that analogy to the universe. But you do, then when you do, you ignore the facts of the analogy.
You do realise this is a philosophy forum?

I have sincerely come to understand that a good discussion with an irrational person like you is not possible, and can be frustrating too. I am on this forum to philosophize, not listen to some crap of yours. Please do not reply to my query. I will not respond to you on any thread again, as you don't even have a modicum of decency in you.

[Beauty]

This thread was about, 'Can a computer be God?'

For a computer to be God, as in what we understand God to be, I don't think a computer could be God ever. Reason why? We make computers and a computer does not have its own thinking, feeling, understanding, knowledge, memory, database of information, whatever is there is coded in by another, and the basis for extensions is also coded in there. So the computer only performs upon command. The command being ours, the computer cannot be God, for God would be the one sitting highest in command, the one behind the making of the computer would be God, but only in respect to the computer, not otherwise, otherwise, the one sitting highest in command of the whole world would be God.

[Philosophy Explorer]

This thread was about, 'Can a computer be God?'

For a computer to be God, as in what we understand God to be, I don't think a computer could be God ever. Reason why? We make computers and a computer does not have its own thinking, feeling, understanding, knowledge, memory, database of information, whatever is there is coded in by another, and the basis for extensions is also coded in there. So the computer only performs upon command. The command being ours, the computer cannot be God, for God would be the one sitting highest in command, the one behind the making of the computer would be God, but only in respect to the computer, not otherwise, otherwise, the one sitting highest in command of the whole world would be God.

You're talking about the present. How about the future as computers (i.e. AI) progress through exponentiation to develop their thinking, understanding, memory, etc.?

PhilX

[Beauty]

This thread was about, 'Can a computer be God?'

For a computer to be God, as in what we understand God to be, I don't think a computer could be God ever. Reason why? We make computers and a computer does not have its own thinking, feeling, understanding, knowledge, memory, database of information, whatever is there is coded in by another, and the basis for extensions is also coded in there. So the computer only performs upon command. The command being ours, the computer cannot be God, for God would be the one sitting highest in command, the one behind the making of the computer would be God, but only in respect to the computer, not otherwise, otherwise, the one sitting highest in command of the whole world would be God.

You're talking about the present. How about the future as computers (i.e. AI) progress through exponentiation to develop their thinking, understanding, memory, etc.?

PhilX

Well, we do happen to wonder if artificial intelligence will not one day take over the whole world, as in us creating a computer/robot, which will do calculations regarding this and that exponentially, which we could never do ourselves, and could take over us having surpassed our power. But since computers cannot have their own independent thought, feeling, understanding, I don't think it would be possible for us to make a computer that can sit God or Devil over us in the sense of controlling us and having power over us in the right or wrong manner respectively, for it would always be a machine that we could any day run over using our intelligence. To say that a computer - artificial intelligence, developing in the computer could be more than our intelligence, let's first define intelligence what it is and how and why it is there, for then we will have the right answer. Intelligence is there in the good and bad and I think equally. When we see the bad taking over the good, it is because the good are not bad and will not do any badness, no matter how intelligent they may be, but the bad have no scruples about being bad and will do this or that. A computer cannot have feeling, so it can never be good or bad, it will only be a performing machine always. A machine cannot take over the world in the short run, and any long run chances, we would know about seeing its performance in the short run, so we will null & void the computer. Any accidents, yes, we could undergo a disaster. Also, a computer could take over our happiness in the sense that today life is not as it used to be yesterday, for yesterday it used to be more feeling, more personal, more outgoing, more physical and so happy, more one to one and more one to more on a personal basis as in socializing and stuff, the reason being that computers are not feeling, personal, physical, socializing(hanging out, partying, having tea together, socializing etc.), and so we have begun to show those characteristics too becoming more and more computer minded. So actually we are more in fear of becoming artificial, not that computers could ever become real. Now back to the definition of intelligence. If this world is due to quarks initially and themselves appearing(like an idea coming to us itself), and their various combinations and one thing leading to another has given way to life and world coming into being the way it is today, then artificial intelligence could take over the world. But hey! We make computers. So the quarks would be someone's made and also the natural laws that followed, and if everything went out of hand then we would not understand some things and would not have control and power over some things, and it does seem to be that actually. But first how did that someone get made? So then, there is some law in the higher Heavens which might go like this - appearance and disappearance of the spirit is there and it is itself. Spirit in us is - thinking, feeling, understanding, knowledge, memory, database of information, consciousness etc. What might have gone out of hand when spirits made this or that is - vegetable food good and appropriate is not there for all life, animals cannot grow food, in the soil there's animal life although we need to till the soil, tend to it, to grow food, in just about everything there seems to be sin or at least some wrong, ocean life does not have much vegetable produce, our body comes from the environment and goes to the environment and we have vegetable food from the same environment which does not seem right etc. So, in the higher Heavens, it does seem as if something went horribly wrong which spirits don't have control over, but life if always there in Heaven is still the good life. Our food coming from the environment and also us going to the environment(although it could be no other way for body coming from food, food is environment, going back to environment makes sense), the work to be done everyday, good vegetable food is not there, some animal life is always hurt/harmed when we clean home, do gardening, tend to the fields, have some fun, it could be argued who would really desire a life like this in the first place, perhaps no one. So then our creator would bring this world to a close because of life not making sense, but the creator doesn't. So that means something went wrong in the higher Heavens, and life and the world cannot be shut down. Not artificial intelligence taken control and gone haywire, but higher Heavens made a gigantic mistake, perhaps that spirit takes body accordingly for a lifetime and keeps doing that. Spirits coming cannot be stopped, and taking bodyform accordingly cannot be stopped. If the creator is artificial intelligence (theory or development of computers and so forth) itself, then how would something happen itself. We do understand the word itself, idea coming itself, we walking, cooking, learning, writing, erasing doing are not taught every single thing or line or motion but it is itself all the various motions etc., and we can say that that only happens because this world happened itself, the natural laws happened themselves(itself) and so on and we would be right. So the creators name would be itself, and that would come up itself and we cannot argue with that. So then if that is the case, then the creator being all powerful, the creator itself would take care of any problem arising in the world, reason being it would be a logical happening, solution being there always, because problems arise when there were none, meaning when all was good, so creator would bring that good back. What I mean to say is that problem shows a solution is there beforehand, otherwise how and why and from where did the problem arise? It couldn't. And so problem would be resolved, there being a solution always. "Life has a way of taking care of itself." No worries. Creator would be nature and so we have natural laws in nature, and so we have a nature in everything and everyone. Nature even sits biggest, all powerful(so should you desire your spirit gone, it would go away), so nature is our Lord/Lady and it is all natural. Jesus said, "The natural is first." Jesus also said, "Have you found the beginning then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is." Nature is creator, nature nurtures, nature would bring our spirit to a close should we so desire. Creator would honour our request if it is from the heart and we are deserving, then we will have wish-fulfillment. All said and done, the way natural law goes and it is the cosmic law - your action, your consequence, your fate. So think whatever you want, do whatever you want, but consequence is according to action which is our fate in life. We are all free spirits in the world - Gods. "Know ye not that ye are all Gods, and the spirit of God dwelleth in you?" So then live your life as you please, we are all free, always have been. Pain and suffering is of our own making, joy and happiness is of our own making, and the way life is in the world we understand, live it with understanding.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Two things - one creation and the other creator. So creator is not in the creation? How do you know there's a creator in the first place seeing the creation? I make a store, it is to MY taste, MY preference, MY thinking, MY feeling, MY understanding, MY memory and stuff, and so it reflects all those MY's. Also, I am actually sitting inside my store. Point is I am - thinking, feeling, understanding, knowledge, memory and so on, and all that is there in my creation, my creation would reflect that, otherwise would you say that I don't make things to my taste? But I would, for why would it be otherwise? So I am there in my creation, but I am not one with my creation.

I want to ask you something, how are the objects of creation changing if the creator's characteristics aren't, what would be the basis? Environment has an effect on things, but then we understand the effect of environment upon a thing as distinct from other changes done by creator himself. So the basis for change would be creator made or environment. So then examining creation, we can tell a lot about the creator, as his characteristics would be in there, even the changing characteristics would be there dependent upon the change of characteristics in the creator, and regarding the environmental changes, we would know what environment is responsible for that change.

Basically creator is seen in his/her creation. As an example: Someone makes a rude painting. How would you view the painter? In a good light? I don't think so.

One thing. You are falsely assuming that you are witness to a creation.

A painting has a creator, but there is no need to extend that analogy to the universe. But you do, then when you do, you ignore the facts of the analogy.
You do realise this is a philosophy forum?

I have sincerely come to understand that a good discussion with an irrational person like you is not possible, and can be frustrating too. I am on this forum to philosophize, not listen to some crap of yours. Please do not reply to my query. I will not respond to you on any thread again, as you don't even have a modicum of decency in you.

Gotcha. I've clearly hit a nerve; a point you cannot answer.

Tut,tut, tut. The fact remains that everything you have said is based on an assumption that the universe has a creator. Because of this you undermine everything you say.
Thanks, for loosing the argument.