God is testing us all

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

NSKimura
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:42 pm

I asked a theist why God allows good people to suffer and bad people to prosper, I told him that it when I look around it seems like God doesn't exist or doesn't care. His reply was that God is testing us, that life is a test, he tests some with hardships and suffering and others with wealth and happiness. My response was that tests/testing is what finite beings do when they lack knowledge. In science we test hypotheses to confirm or falsify them because we do not know. But God does know every true fact about us, hence it is not meaningful to say that God tests. His reply was this: just as a teacher who knows very well who will pass/fail an exam, will nevertheless test her students, despite what he knows about them, so too does God test us in life even thought he knows who will pass/fail.

He got me good with this one at that moment. I could see the analogy but couldn't carry it all the way to absurdity or show that there was a dis-analogy.

Later that day I thought about it and came up with this: why would a teacher test her students when she knows who will pass or fail? The reason, I thought, has to be that the teacher's knowledge of who will pass or fail is imperfect, there must be doubt, at least about some of the students. Surely, there has to be a group of students in any class who fall in the middle of the competence spectrum whom she cannot know for certain whether they will pass or not. Hence, the test removes any doubt. The purpose of the test is also to convince other teachers/schools that certain students are competent (her testimony without the test results would be unacceptable). Clearly the teacher has no choice but to test the students to prove their competence to other teachers/schools and to remove all doubt.

But God on the other hand has no doubt and so no test can add to his perfect knowledge; the test (life) becomes superfluous in this case. He also has no one to convince that we are good or bad, he is the absolute judge and authority and he alone will decide who gets to enter heaven or hell. Therefore, the claim that God is testing us in this life is incoherent.

I believe that this is sufficient to demonstrate that the idea of God testing us in this life is wrong. God cannot coherently test us and so the only reasonable conclusion is that (the orthodox, classical theistic) God doesn't exist.

Would that have been a good rebuttal?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:21 pm

NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:42 pm
I asked a theist why God allows good people to suffer and bad people to prosper, I told him that it when I look around it seems like God doesn't exist or doesn't care. His reply was that God is testing us, that life is a test, he tests some with hardships and suffering and others with wealth and happiness. My response was that tests/testing is what finite beings do when they lack knowledge. In science we test hypotheses to confirm or falsify them because we do not know. But God does know every true fact about us, hence it is not meaningful to say that God tests. His reply was this: just as a teacher who knows very well who will pass/fail an exam, will nevertheless test her students, despite what he knows about them, so too does God test us in life even thought he knows who will pass/fail.

He got me good with this one at that moment. I could see the analogy but couldn't carry it all the way to absurdity or show that there was a dis-analogy.

Later that day I thought about it and came up with this: why would a teacher test her students when she knows who will pass or fail? The reason, I thought, has to be that the teacher's knowledge of who will pass or fail is imperfect, there must be doubt, at least about some of the students. Surely, there has to be a group of students in any class who fall in the middle of the competence spectrum whom she cannot know for certain whether they will pass or not. Hence, the test removes any doubt. The purpose of the test is also to convince other teachers/schools that certain students are competent (her testimony without the test results would be unacceptable). Clearly the teacher has no choice but to test the students to prove their competence to other teachers/schools and to remove all doubt.

But God on the other hand has no doubt and so no test can add to his perfect knowledge; the test (life) becomes superfluous in this case. He also has no one to convince that we are good or bad, he is the absolute judge and authority and he alone will decide who gets to enter heaven or hell. Therefore, the claim that God is testing us in this life is incoherent.

I believe that this is sufficient to demonstrate that the idea of God testing us in this life is wrong. God cannot coherently test us and so the only reasonable conclusion is that (the orthodox, classical theistic) God doesn't exist.

Would that have been a good rebuttal?
A test by nature is only a proof of existence. "X" is tested to prove "X" is "X" in both function and form. A test is merely "X" existing as "X" relative to specific circumstances that allows it full nature to be expressed.

To say a person is being tested is to say they are being proved for what they are, it doesn't necessarily equate to good and evil but where a person's choice lies. While this does equate to the standard good, evil, it doesn't always equate to it. A test, in regards to human character, is strictly an observation of where a person's choice lies.

The student's being tested are given an opportunity to express what that have learned, where as other wise they have no freedom. The test is for the students, not the teacher.

A test is fundamentally self-actualization in the face of nothingness (chaos/ignorance/etc) as full expression of perception and will. In these respects, we judge ourselves by our actions as our ability self-reflect is an extension of God. We form our own judgement, as extensions of God, through our own free will.

Moral laws, such as "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you", "you reap what you sow", etc. are merely laws of self-actualization where we form our own judgement. In these respects morality is strictly a sense of freedom of expression.

NSKimura
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:21 pm
A test by nature is only a proof of existence. "X" is tested to prove "X" is "X" in both function and form. A test is merely "X" existing as "X" relative to specific circumstances that allows it full nature to be expressed.

To say a person is being tested is to say they are being proved for what they are, it doesn't necessarily equate to good and evil but where a person's choice lies. While this does equate to the standard good, evil, it doesn't always equate to it. A test, in regards to human character, is strictly an observation of where a person's choice lies.

The student's being tested are given an opportunity to express what that have learned, where as other wise they have no freedom. The test is for the students, not the teacher.

A test is fundamentally self-actualization in the face of nothingness (chaos/ignorance/etc) as full expression of perception and will. In these respects, we judge ourselves by our actions as our ability self-reflect is an extension of God. We form our own judgement, as extensions of God, through our own free will.

Moral laws, such as "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you", "you reap what you sow", etc. are merely laws of self-actualization where we form our own judgement. In these respects morality is strictly a sense of freedom of expression.
You say that a "test by nature is only a proof of existence". If a test is a proof of existence as you say, then why would God test anything/anyone to prove its existence when he knows it exists, especially when God is supposed to be the grounds of existence for everything? This principle implies that God needs proof of existence of things whose existence depends on God, which is absurd.

The idea that God tests us to prove that we are what we are (to prove that X is X as you put it), or as you said "a person is being tested is to say they are being proved for what they are", when God already knows what we are, is circular. We can cut out the test part and God still knows that X is X, which is a necessary truth. There is no need to test whether something is identical to itself, we know this a priori, and if God exists he knows this is a necessary truth. What's more, since God knows all true propositions he knows all the choices that will be made by all free beings in all situations, possible or actual. Thus the idea of God testing us to prove that we exist or to prove that we are identical to ourselves is incoherent.

As for the students being tested so they can "express what that have learned, where as other wise they have no freedom" does not seem plausible. The students always have the freedom to express what they have learned and are encouraged to express it. If a student learns how to create programs, then the teacher will encourage him to practice, to express this skill whenever he can, not only in an test. What we know about tests from looking at real world examples of tests is that if one doesn't pass a test then one cannot progress. So we test because we do not know who is competent enough to progress and who isn't. It also reveals errors to the student so they can correct them. So it is not true that the test is only for the student, but not for the teachers. Both need the test.

Thanks for the reply but I think you are a bit confused or perhaps I didn't quit understand what you said. But you surely have to reconsider your definitions of test, they lead to incoherence and circularity.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Viveka » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:37 pm

What if the test is for the student in that he/she will learn about himself/herself during the test? God knows, but the student doesn't. The whole point of a test is to test aptitude for a certain skill. This skill will be used later on in a real job. The student knows what is needed and will learn from it but the teacher needs the test to give the student a chance at real work. In other words, testing is teaching.

Enter reincarnation: each rebirth is due to karma, and each rebirth teaches a specific lesson due to one's own karma. If one has good karma one will be reborn into a human or deva realm. If one has bad karma one is reborn into preta, asura, hell, or animal realm. Each of these realms has a specific emotion attached to its being. Pretas are desirous, asuras are jealous, hell realm beings suffer heat and cold, and animals suffer ignorance and a lack of laughter, etc.

Why would God send us through different realms except to test us? To teach us!

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm

NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:09 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:21 pm
A test by nature is only a proof of existence. "X" is tested to prove "X" is "X" in both function and form. A test is merely "X" existing as "X" relative to specific circumstances that allows it full nature to be expressed.

To say a person is being tested is to say they are being proved for what they are, it doesn't necessarily equate to good and evil but where a person's choice lies. While this does equate to the standard good, evil, it doesn't always equate to it. A test, in regards to human character, is strictly an observation of where a person's choice lies.

The student's being tested are given an opportunity to express what that have learned, where as other wise they have no freedom. The test is for the students, not the teacher.

A test is fundamentally self-actualization in the face of nothingness (chaos/ignorance/etc) as full expression of perception and will. In these respects, we judge ourselves by our actions as our ability self-reflect is an extension of God. We form our own judgement, as extensions of God, through our own free will.

Moral laws, such as "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you", "you reap what you sow", etc. are merely laws of self-actualization where we form our own judgement. In these respects morality is strictly a sense of freedom of expression.
You say that a "test by nature is only a proof of existence". If a test is a proof of existence as you say, then why would God test anything/anyone to prove its existence when he knows it exists, especially when God is supposed to be the grounds of existence for everything? This principle implies that God needs proof of existence of things whose existence depends on God, which is absurd.

God relfects himself ad-infinitum as opposition to nothingness through being. Proof is actualization in the face of nothingness as pure being. Tests mimic this.

The idea that God tests us to prove that we are what we are (to prove that X is X as you put it), or as you said "a person is being tested is to say they are being proved for what they are", when God already knows what we are, is circular.
Testing is actualization.

In regards to the geometric foundation of the argument:

If a line extends into a zero dimensional point, ad-finintum, it eventually folds into upon itself througha an act of self-reflection as it can only exist through itself. Linear logic, is contradictory on its own terms as it requires exterior relations ad-fininitum, which in turn requires further exterior relations, etc. The line is merely an extension between two points as "Pi" or the circle. Many ancients, viewed God as represented through the circular. Linearism is randomness as movement towards point zero.



We can cut out the test part and God still knows that X is X, which is a necessary truth.
Actually you cannot cut out the test part, as the test is strictly opposition to nothingness. God opposes nothingness, through being. In turn man, as an extension, follows a similiar pattern. We do this intuitively, even rationally, such as using this argument as an example. One person provides a positive, the other provides a negative, in turn a synthesis occurs resulting in "being"...in this case "axioms" or "truth(s)".

There is no need to test whether something is identical to itself, we know this a priori,
Being identical to oneself implies division. "A" just is. "A = A" observes as a duality now, while simultaneously observing dual terms as "A" and "=". Equality implies division in the face of multiplicity as a form of deficiency. To imply one is identical to oneself is to seperate oneself into a form of symmetry, where "A = A" is now (A=A) = B, which in turn forms ((A=A)=B=B) = C. In these respects the observation of equality is the observation of individuation.

As extensions of God, whose self-reflects in opposition to nothingness, man actualizes himself through proof as action, intent, etc. A test is not a thing in itself but strictly absense of order.

God testing us, is merely God allowing us to be free of him by allowing a percieved absence. In these respect, a test is who we are when we are ignorant of God. What we believe and why is what forms us, and in these respects we actualize as God (or relations of) by transcending past ourselves.



and if God exists he knows this is a necessary truth. What's more, since God knows all true propositions he knows all the choices that will be made by all free beings in all situations, possible or actual. Thus the idea of God testing us to prove that we exist or to prove that we are identical to ourselves is incoherent.

God's testing is us proving we exist.

No because testing is just actualization in the face of opposition. Opposition provide a means to free will, however free will does not require opposition. Free will allows all possibilities to exist on their own terms, if something choose to do "x" the testing process is just an observation of consequence that already happened.

God may know what we choose, but we know only through choice.


As for the students being tested so they can "express what that have learned, where as other wise they have no freedom" does not seem plausible. The students always have the freedom to express what they have learned and are encouraged to express it. If a student learns how to create programs, then the teacher will encourage him to practice, to express this skill whenever he can, not only in an test.

Yes they have that freedom, but what freedom is it in the face of encouragement?

What we know about tests from looking at real world examples of tests is that if one doesn't pass a test then one cannot progress. So we test because we do not know who is competent enough to progress and who isn't. It also reveals errors to the student so they can correct them. So it is not true that the test is only for the student, but not for the teachers. Both need the test.

God reflects himself ad-infinitum in opposition to nothingness as being, he is not applying anything he himself has not experienced. As extensions, we would follow the same process. A test is merely opposition to nothingness. A teach hands a kid a paper with no answers on it, the kid must provide structure to the emptiness of the test, through answers.

Thanks for the reply but I think you are a bit confused or perhaps I didn't quit understand what you said. But you surely have to reconsider your definitions of test, they lead to incoherence and circularity.

NSKimura
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:58 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:37 pm
What if the test is for the student in that he/she will learn about himself/herself during the test? God knows, but the student doesn't. The whole point of a test is to test aptitude for a certain skill. This skill will be used later on in a real job. The student knows what is needed and will learn from it but the teacher needs the test to give the student a chance at real work. In other words, testing is teaching.

Enter reincarnation: each rebirth is due to karma, and each rebirth teaches a specific lesson due to one's own karma. If one has good karma one will be reborn into a human or deva realm. If one has bad karma one is reborn into preta, asura, hell, or animal realm. Each of these realms has a specific emotion attached to its being. Pretas are desirous, asuras are jealous, hell realm beings suffer heat and cold, and animals suffer ignorance and a lack of laughter, etc.

Why would God send us through different realms except to test us? To teach us!
Why would we need the test and the knowledge about ourselves we obtain from the test when it will not determine what choice God will make for us? Suppose I am a bad person and that through this life I learn that I am a bad person. God knew that I am a bad person before I was born, and knew I would go to hell. Why test then? My self knowledge doesn't help me at all if I am going to hell. This of course applies to the orthodox God of monotheism.

A nicer alternative would be to create us all in heaven and teach us to be good. He could actualise only those beings who have a certain good nature and because everyone would be doing good, good would become a habit for everyone, there would be no evil, or at least minimal, while at the same time our free will is not violated.

As for reincarnation (I know nothing about Eastern theology/philosophy), lets assume one is reincarnated in the animal realm. How does one learn from this and correct his errors from the previous life? Animals do not make moral choices, so any actions animals make have no moral consequences. I don't see how then this person reborn into an animal can learn anything and or be tested.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Viveka » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:10 pm

NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:58 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:37 pm
What if the test is for the student in that he/she will learn about himself/herself during the test? God knows, but the student doesn't. The whole point of a test is to test aptitude for a certain skill. This skill will be used later on in a real job. The student knows what is needed and will learn from it but the teacher needs the test to give the student a chance at real work. In other words, testing is teaching.

Enter reincarnation: each rebirth is due to karma, and each rebirth teaches a specific lesson due to one's own karma. If one has good karma one will be reborn into a human or deva realm. If one has bad karma one is reborn into preta, asura, hell, or animal realm. Each of these realms has a specific emotion attached to its being. Pretas are desirous, asuras are jealous, hell realm beings suffer heat and cold, and animals suffer ignorance and a lack of laughter, etc.

Why would God send us through different realms except to test us? To teach us!
Why would we need the test and the knowledge about ourselves we obtain from the test when it will not determine what choice God will make for us? Suppose I am a bad person and that through this life I learn that I am a bad person. God knew that I am a bad person before I was born, and knew I would go to hell. Why test then? My self knowledge doesn't help me at all if I am going to hell. This of course applies to the orthodox God of monotheism.

A nicer alternative would be to create us all in heaven and teach us to be good. He could actualise only those beings who have a certain good nature and because everyone would be doing good, good would become a habit for everyone, there would be no evil, or at least minimal, while at the same time our free will is not violated.

As for reincarnation (I know nothing about Eastern theology/philosophy), lets assume one is reincarnated in the animal realm. How does one learn from this and correct his errors from the previous life? Animals do not make moral choices, so any actions animals make have no moral consequences. I don't see how then this person reborn into an animal can learn anything and or be tested.
Well, it doesn't matter if god knows or not if we will pass the test. Our own free will changes due to taking the test. For instance, if I pass a test it will signify to the teacher that I am learned enough to pass on to harder material. I think that God doesn't determine our free will, so we can always change.

Similar to the question of free-will and foreknowledge, if God could make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, then he would simply make it too heavy, and then lift it! Likewise, God could know all that we are going to do, yet still change our future according to what we choose. This is the paradox of infinity, such as the paradox of the infinite hotel.

Anyways, as for reincarnation, we can remember past lives if we wish. It depends upon what realm we are in that determines what karma we accumulate as well. Pretas desire a lot so they end up accumulating karma according to what the realm allows, doing good or evil in that realm. Karma is the learner and teacher and test.

NSKimura
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:17 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
You say that a "test by nature is only a proof of existence". If a test is a proof of existence as you say, then why would God test anything/anyone to prove its existence when he knows it exists, especially when God is supposed to be the grounds of existence for everything? This principle implies that God needs proof of existence of things whose existence depends on God, which is absurd.

God relfects himself ad-infinitum as opposition to nothingness through being. Proof is actualization in the face of nothingness as pure being. Tests mimic this.
So test = proof of existence, and proof of existence = actualisation, presumably of something from potential existence to actual existence. Then a test = actualization. When God creates or actualizes something he is testing it? Sorry but this is not what people mean when they say that God is testing us or that this life is a test.

Let us see how your concept of test, when applied to the claim that God is testing us, will answer the question:

God is testing us in this life = God is proving our existence in this life(if something exists it necessarily exists, so why prove that something exists when God is the grounds of existence? We know that we exist and God, if he exists, knows that we exist too. Absurd.)
God is testing us in this life = God is proving our actualisation in the face of nothingness (the same as above, absurd.)
God is testing us in this life = God is actualising us (How can you actualise that which is actual? Absurd.)

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
The idea that God tests us to prove that we are what we are (to prove that X is X as you put it), or as you said "a person is being tested is to say they are being proved for what they are", when God already knows what we are, is circular.

Testing is actualization.

In regards to the geometric foundation of the argument:

If a line extends into a zero dimensional point, ad-finintum, it eventually folds into upon itself througha an act of self-reflection as it can only exist through itself. Linear logic, is contradictory on its own terms as it requires exterior relations ad-fininitum, which in turn requires further exterior relations, etc. The line is merely an extension between two points as "Pi" or the circle. Many ancients, viewed God as represented through the circular. Linearism is randomness as movement towards point zero.
I don't see how "self reflecting lines" and things that "exist in themselves" answers the question of whether it is coherent or not to say that the God of orthodox monotheism is testing us.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
We can cut out the test part and God still knows that X is X, which is a necessary truth.
Actually you cannot cut out the test part, as the test is strictly opposition to nothingness. God opposes nothingness, through being. In turn man, as an extension, follows a similiar pattern. We do this intuitively, even rationally, such as using this argument as an example. One person provides a positive, the other provides a negative, in turn a synthesis occurs resulting in "being"...in this case "axioms" or "truth(s)".
Well, if you define "test" as "actualisation" or "proving existence" then God actualising us or proving our existence we already exist is still incoherent. God hating nothingness so he actualises us and proves our existence is nonsense I am sorry to say.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
There is no need to test whether something is identical to itself, we know this a priori,
Being identical to oneself implies division. "A" just is. "A = A" observes as a duality now, while simultaneously observing dual terms as "A" and "=". Equality implies division in the face of multiplicity as a form of deficiency. To imply one is identical to oneself is to seperate oneself into a form of symmetry, where "A = A" is now (A=A) = B, which in turn forms ((A=A)=B=B) = C. In these respects the observation of equality is the observation of individuation.

As extensions of God, whose self-reflects in opposition to nothingness, man actualizes himself through proof as action, intent, etc. A test is not a thing in itself but strictly absense of order.

God testing us, is merely God allowing us to be free of him by allowing a percieved absence. In these respect, a test is who we are when we are ignorant of God. What we believe and why is what forms us, and in these respects we actualize as God (or relations of) by transcending past ourselves.
You are being confused by the symbols we use to express the law of identity. A is A is how we express the idea that something cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. There is no division here, the division exists only in the perception of the symbol "A" being separated from another instance of the symbol "A" by an the symbol "=".

To say that man actualises (tests) himself is not the same as to say that God actualises (tests) man. Remember that we are talking about God testing man. Still what you said there is incoherent and, I am sorry to say, nonsense.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
and if God exists he knows this is a necessary truth. What's more, since God knows all true propositions he knows all the choices that will be made by all free beings in all situations, possible or actual. Thus the idea of God testing us to prove that we exist or to prove that we are identical to ourselves is incoherent.

God's testing is us proving we exist.
So God is actualising us to prove that we exist? Or the equivalent according to your definitions, God is proving our existence to prove that we exist. This is circular and in no way answers the question in the OP.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
No because testing is just actualization in the face of opposition. Opposition provide a means to free will, however free will does not require opposition. Free will allows all possibilities to exist on their own terms, if something choose to do "x" the testing process is just an observation of consequence that already happened.

God may know what we choose, but we know only through choice.
God knows a priori, we know a posteriori. So God tests us to prove that we exist and to allow us to actualise potentials in us? Lets take the right hand side of the conjunction. If I understood it correctly, God testing us means that God is allowing us to actualise our potentials through the exercise of free will. God could still create free agents who freely choose to do only what is morally good in all by actualising only the situations in which these beings will freely choose to do good. But this is now a free will theodicy and not what we are discussing here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
As for the students being tested so they can "express what that have learned, where as other wise they have no freedom" does not seem plausible. The students always have the freedom to express what they have learned and are encouraged to express it. If a student learns how to create programs, then the teacher will encourage him to practice, to express this skill whenever he can, not only in an test.

Yes they have that freedom, but what freedom is it in the face of encouragement?
The same could be asked about teaching them, what freedom is it in the face of their being taught? If you teach someone to do something in a particular way, say, the right way, are you limiting or violating his free will? Of course not.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
What we know about tests from looking at real world examples of tests is that if one doesn't pass a test then one cannot progress. So we test because we do not know who is competent enough to progress and who isn't. It also reveals errors to the student so they can correct them. So it is not true that the test is only for the student, but not for the teachers. Both need the test.

God reflects himself ad-infinitum in opposition to nothingness as being, he is not applying anything he himself has not experienced. As extensions, we would follow the same process. A test is merely opposition to nothingness. A teach hands a kid a paper with no answers on it, the kid must provide structure to the emptiness of the test, through answers.
Sorry but this makes no sense at all.

NSKimura
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:10 pm
Well, it doesn't matter if god knows or not if we will pass the test. Our own free will changes due to taking the test. For instance, if I pass a test it will signify to the teacher that I am learned enough to pass on to harder material. I think that God doesn't determine our free will, so we can always change.
How does free will change when taking a test? And what do you mean with free will changing?

You said that"if I pass a test it will signify to the teacher that I am learned enough to pass on to harder material", which is correct. But then you say something totally irrelevant, that you think that "God doesn't determine our free will, so we can always change".

Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:10 pm
Similar to the question of free-will and foreknowledge, if God could make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, then he would simply make it too heavy, and then lift it! Likewise, God could know all that we are going to do, yet still change our future according to what we choose. This is the paradox of infinity, such as the paradox of the infinite hotel.
God cannot violate logic.

Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:10 pm
Anyways, as for reincarnation, we can remember past lives if we wish. It depends upon what realm we are in that determines what karma we accumulate as well. Pretas desire a lot so they end up accumulating karma according to what the realm allows, doing good or evil in that realm. Karma is the learner and teacher and test.
Sorry but this makes no sense and doesn't answer what I asked you earlier about reincarnation.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Viveka » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:01 pm

NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm
How does free will change when taking a test? And what do you mean with free will changing?
I mean that our choices can change in 'free will changing.' After taking the test we have demonstrated that we have knowledge, and therefore can go on to the next test. Our free-will determines whether or not we have the ability to go to the next test, much like if I used my free-will to study beforehand.
NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm
You said that"if I pass a test it will signify to the teacher that I am learned enough to pass on to harder material", which is correct. But then you say something totally irrelevant, that you think that "God doesn't determine our free will, so we can always change".
You specifically said that god has foreknowledge. I'm saying that his foreknowledge doesn't change our free will.

NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm
God cannot violate logic.


Where was logic violated?
NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm
Sorry but this makes no sense and doesn't answer what I asked you earlier about reincarnation.
Oh well. It makes sense and does answer your question if you understood what i meant by my last sentence.

NSKimura
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:13 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by NSKimura » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:19 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:01 pm
NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm
How does free will change when taking a test? And what do you mean with free will changing?
I mean that our choices can change in 'free will changing.' After taking the test we have demonstrated that we have knowledge, and therefore can go on to the next test. Our free-will determines whether or not we have the ability to go to the next test, much like if I used my free-will to study beforehand.
Free will doesn't determine whether or not you go to the next level. You could be learning against your free will and forced to take the exam and pass it against your free will. Free will is not a necessary condition, but it is sufficient. What is necessary though is that we have studied and that we sit the exam, regardless of whether this is done out of free will or coercion.


Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:01 pm
NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm
You said that"if I pass a test it will signify to the teacher that I am learned enough to pass on to harder material", which is correct. But then you say something totally irrelevant, that you think that "God doesn't determine our free will, so we can always change".
You specifically said that god has foreknowledge. I'm saying that his foreknowledge doesn't change our free will.
Free will isn't something that changes, Choices are things that can change. I agree, God's foreknowledge doesn't affect our free will, it doesn't violate it.

In your post you said that if you pass a test then this tell your teacher than you can move on to harder material. But then you follow it with the claim that God doesn't determine our free will and that we can always change. What has this latter claim got to do with the former?

Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:01 pm
NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm
God cannot violate logic.


Where was logic violated?
You said "if God could make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, then he would simply make it too heavy, and then lift it!". This is a contradiction.

Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:01 pm
NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm
Sorry but this makes no sense and doesn't answer what I asked you earlier about reincarnation.
Oh well. It makes sense and does answer your question if you understood what i meant by my last sentence.
Sorry, still doesn't answer the question and still makes no sense, no offence intended.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Viveka » Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:17 am

NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:19 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:01 pm
NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:48 pm
How does free will change when taking a test? And what do you mean with free will changing?
I mean that our choices can change in 'free will changing.' After taking the test we have demonstrated that we have knowledge, and therefore can go on to the next test. Our free-will determines whether or not we have the ability to go to the next test, much like if I used my free-will to study beforehand.
Free will doesn't determine whether or not you go to the next level. You could be learning against your free will and forced to take the exam and pass it against your free will. Free will is not a necessary condition, but it is sufficient. What is necessary though is that we have studied and that we sit the exam, regardless of whether this is done out of free will or coercion.
Regardless of our being born into this life, we have the free-will to make the best of it. You claim that being born can be coercion, but I ask to differ in that no matter how you were born, you're taking the test, and you'll either pass or fail it.

NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:19 pm
Free will isn't something that changes, Choices are things that can change. I agree, God's foreknowledge doesn't affect our free will, it doesn't violate it.
Okay, then we have established that it doesn't matter if God knows beforehand.
NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:19 pm
In your post you said that if you pass a test then this tell your teacher than you can move on to harder material. But then you follow it with the claim that God doesn't determine our free will and that we can always change. What has this latter claim got to do with the former?
I am establishing that our free will is not violated by God's omniscience. If we change ourselves, we are essentially changing in accordance with god's foreknowledge. This means that no matter how bad or good we passed the test, we nonetheless passed it by our own free-will and are in control of our destiny with God's foreknowledge not changing that. The fact that we have free-will changes how we pass or fail the test. My jist is that foreknowledge does not preclude free-will.


NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:19 pm
You said "if God could make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it, then he would simply make it too heavy, and then lift it!". This is a contradiction.
Nope, it isn't. Look at the paradox of the infinite hotel. It's an analogy to it.

NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:19 pm
Sorry, still doesn't answer the question and still makes no sense, no offence intended.
If you were familiar with Buddhism or Hinduism, as you said you weren't, then you would understand and it would make sense.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Viveka » Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:30 am

I'm sorry but I have realized we've had a conversation about the 'test' without describing what the 'test' itself tests! Is it Good and Evil that are being tested? Or self-knowledge? Or what?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:34 am

NSKimura wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:17 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
You say that a "test by nature is only a proof of existence". If a test is a proof of existence as you say, then why would God test anything/anyone to prove its existence when he knows it exists, especially when God is supposed to be the grounds of existence for everything? This principle implies that God needs proof of existence of things whose existence depends on God, which is absurd.

God relfects himself ad-infinitum as opposition to nothingness through being. Proof is actualization in the face of nothingness as pure being. Tests mimic this.
So test = proof of existence, and proof of existence = actualisation, presumably of something from potential existence to actual existence. Then a test = actualization. When God creates or actualizes something he is testing it? Sorry but this is not what people mean when they say that God is testing us or that this life is a test.

Let us see how your concept of test, when applied to the claim that God is testing us, will answer the question:

God is testing us in this life = God is proving our existence in this life(if something exists it necessarily exists, so why prove that something exists when God is the grounds of existence? We know that we exist and God, if he exists, knows that we exist too. Absurd.)

Proof is existence, as proof observe quality with quality being a dimension of being in itself. The observation of quality, as being is the observation of proof. Take for example a bottle of liquor, its proof observes its quality, and the liquor exists in such a state.

God is testing us in this life = God is proving our actualisation in the face of nothingness (the same as above, absurd.)

Claiming absurdity without a counter-argument is absurd, as it is irrational. You are not negating anything.. Proof is actualization as quality and quantity.

God is testing us in this life = God is actualising us (How can you actualise that which is actual? Absurd.)
Actuality is both constant and moving. A constant actual would be "1" as a dimension of measurement which is universal. A moving actual would be the application of 1 as measurement repeatedly in a different manner.

God's actualization of us, observes the movement of our actions as a approximations of one universal moment in when everything we did already existed, exists, and will exist. What we understand as movement, is merely approximation of stability, with approximation itself be akin to randomness. Randomness is not a thing and of itself but rather an absence of being, a limit of being in one respect. In these respects, the observation of randomness, is an observation of deficiency, in which the process of self-reflection (through logic) and moral reflection (do unto others, you reap what you so, etc.) provides structure to reality.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
The idea that God tests us to prove that we are what we are (to prove that X is X as you put it), or as you said "a person is being tested is to say they are being proved for what they are", when God already knows what we are, is circular.

Testing is actualization.

In regards to the geometric foundation of the argument:

If a line extends into a zero dimensional point, ad-finintum, it eventually folds into upon itself througha an act of self-reflection as it can only exist through itself. Linear logic, is contradictory on its own terms as it requires exterior relations ad-fininitum, which in turn requires further exterior relations, etc. The line is merely an extension between two points as "Pi" or the circle. Many ancients, viewed God as represented through the circular. Linearism is randomness as movement towards point zero.
I don't see how "self reflecting lines" and things that "exist in themselves" answers the question of whether it is coherent or not to say that the God of orthodox monotheism is testing us.

If you do not see how, then how can you claim I am neither right nor wrong? In any case, you cannot claim something is wrong without first understanding it.

Considering the application of dimensions is a constant universal inherent within conciousness, and dimensions provide the foundation for reality, what we understand of God is Logos as universal measurement made evident within the line, point and circle being spatial dimensions which both define and compose reality.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
We can cut out the test part and God still knows that X is X, which is a necessary truth.
Actually you cannot cut out the test part, as the test is strictly opposition to nothingness. God opposes nothingness, through being. In turn man, as an extension, follows a similiar pattern. We do this intuitively, even rationally, such as using this argument as an example. One person provides a positive, the other provides a negative, in turn a synthesis occurs resulting in "being"...in this case "axioms" or "truth(s)".
Well, if you define "test" as "actualisation" or "proving existence" then God actualising us or proving our existence we already exist is still incoherent.
If everything exists as one causal moment, with effect merely being approximate cause to further cause, cause is an ever present median of reality and in this respect the act of existence, as cause through structure, is perpetual proof.


God hating nothingness so he actualises us and proves our existence is nonsense I am sorry to say.

And why is that nonsense? What would be "sensical" if you understand so much about how the universe works? Tell me how it works, otherwise you claims of "nonsense" are mere self-righteous hypocrisy.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
There is no need to test whether something is identical to itself, we know this a priori,
Being identical to oneself implies division. "A" just is. "A = A" observes as a duality now, while simultaneously observing dual terms as "A" and "=". Equality implies division in the face of multiplicity as a form of deficiency. To imply one is identical to oneself is to seperate oneself into a form of symmetry, where "A = A" is now (A=A) = B, which in turn forms ((A=A)=B=B) = C. In these respects the observation of equality is the observation of individuation.

As extensions of God, whose self-reflects in opposition to nothingness, man actualizes himself through proof as action, intent, etc. A test is not a thing in itself but strictly absense of order.

God testing us, is merely God allowing us to be free of him by allowing a percieved absence. In these respect, a test is who we are when we are ignorant of God. What we believe and why is what forms us, and in these respects we actualize as God (or relations of) by transcending past ourselves.
You are being confused by the symbols we use to express the law of identity. A is A is how we express the idea that something cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect.
Expression is crystalization of form through symbol. The seperation of "A" into "A = A" by default creates a duality in symbolism. How we express an idea, through symbol, in turn results in further definition and is not limited strictly to the symbolism or reality being expressed. Axioms synthesize further axioms.


There is no division here, the division exists only in the perception of the symbol "A" being separated from another instance of the symbol "A" by an the symbol "=".

Then why claim "A" is equivalent to "A". Why not just say "A"?

To say that man actualises (tests) himself is not the same as to say that God actualises (tests) man. Remember that we are talking about God testing man. Still what you said there is incoherent and, I am sorry to say, nonsense.

But according to you what we understand of God, is strictly what we understand of man, as man made up God. You cannot seperate man from God, if you claim man made up God.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
and if God exists he knows this is a necessary truth. What's more, since God knows all true propositions he knows all the choices that will be made by all free beings in all situations, possible or actual. Thus the idea of God testing us to prove that we exist or to prove that we are identical to ourselves is incoherent.

God's testing is us proving we exist.
So God is actualising us to prove that we exist? Or the equivalent according to your definitions, God is proving our existence to prove that we exist. This is circular and in no way answers the question in the OP.

Look in the dictionary and you will find all definitions are inherently circular on thier own terms. Proof as a actualization, observes a common middle definition as being. Would it be more rational if the argument when in one straight line ad-infinitum as ever-approaching zero? That is irrational, and by default the standards you require for reason make little to no sense.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
No because testing is just actualization in the face of opposition. Opposition provide a means to free will, however free will does not require opposition. Free will allows all possibilities to exist on their own terms, if something choose to do "x" the testing process is just an observation of consequence that already happened.

God may know what we choose, but we know only through choice.
God knows a priori, we know a posteriori.

Actually you said: "There is no need to test whether something is identical to itself, we know this a priori, and if God exists he knows this is a necessary truth."

So God tests us to prove that we exist and to allow us to actualise potentials in us? Lets take the right hand side of the conjunction. If I understood it correctly, God testing us means that God is allowing us to actualise our potentials through the exercise of free will. God could still create free agents who freely choose to do only what is morally good in all by actualising only the situations in which these beings will freely choose to do good. But this is now a free will theodicy and not what we are discussing here.
Actually this has everything to do with free will, as belief is a manner of choice according to you, otherwise you would have no need ot prove anyone wrong.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
As for the students being tested so they can "express what that have learned, where as other wise they have no freedom" does not seem plausible. The students always have the freedom to express what they have learned and are encouraged to express it. If a student learns how to create programs, then the teacher will encourage him to practice, to express this skill whenever he can, not only in an test.

Yes they have that freedom, but what freedom is it in the face of encouragement?
The same could be asked about teaching them, what freedom is it in the face of their being taught? If you teach someone to do something in a particular way, say, the right way, are you limiting or violating his free will? Of course not.

Freedom is the mediation between extremes. One extreme of continually encouraging someone inhibits free will in a symmetrical, but not equal, degree to continually testing someone. Free will is the observation of balance which allows all possibilities.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm
What we know about tests from looking at real world examples of tests is that if one doesn't pass a test then one cannot progress. So we test because we do not know who is competent enough to progress and who isn't. It also reveals errors to the student so they can correct them. So it is not true that the test is only for the student, but not for the teachers. Both need the test.

God reflects himself ad-infinitum in opposition to nothingness as being, he is not applying anything he himself has not experienced. As extensions, we would follow the same process. A test is merely opposition to nothingness. A teach hands a kid a paper with no answers on it, the kid must provide structure to the emptiness of the test, through answers.
Sorry but this makes no sense at all.
Pure nonsense, as usual. In all frankness I wish you would just say "I don't believe in God because I suffer." "Or their is suffering therefore God does not exist", because that appears to be the intuitive moral crux of the argument.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: God is testing us all

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:35 am

Here is a question: What is the standard for making sense? Otherwise the argument is completely subjective on your side.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: artisticsolution and 1 guest