Mantus

That’s it, I just had to make a new thread since me and :::OshnSoul::: were jacking the other one with this debate.

So here is a hypothetical question: what would motivate god to act?

As human beings we are constantly forced into making choices through external or internal pressures. Yet god has no external pressure. God is omnipotent and non-dependant. God is also free from all instincts. If god does have emotions then they would be in perfect balance.

Why would god make the choice to act?

The motivation cannot come from curiosity because god is presumed to be omniscient. Omniscience is defined as infinite knowledge. It is knowledge of all possibilities in the past, present and future.

As god is infinite he is able to experience infinity. God's omniscience means that god already has knowledge of the experience of infinity. Our memory is vague and corrupt; while omniscient knowledge would be the equivalent of the experience. An omniscient being already knows what the experience would be like down to every single detail in all possibilities.

Some believe that god can get bored. I would strongly disagree. The definition of “bored” is: to make weary by being dull, repetitive, or tedious. If god could get bored, then he would have probably killed himself a long time ago. As an omniscient being one already has perfect knowledge of all experience. There is no novelty in performing any actions for such a being. Therefore action itself would not elevate a boredom caused by omniscience.

So what could motivate an omnipotent and omniscient being to do anything at all?

Boruki

boredom? maybe he's just got nothing better to do.

edit;
oops should've read the whole thing before i posted
maybe he does it to keep him busy. maybe he doesn't know everything that might happen and thats why we're here and he just enjoys watching us in our daily lives. laughing at our mistakes etc

:::OshnSoul:::

eh, some people tend to not understand words very well and sometimes it's hard to interpret things into words- all they are are man's developed tools to communicate.
Mantus has me quite misunderstood and I am trying to put together the right words from my thoughts & feelings.
"bored" is a literal term here- "bored" may not be the best suitable word to describe what I was saying.
All I can say is that If I were to just sit here- doing nothing, juat BEing, although I know everything- why not put that everything to use? That's just what God did. He created offspring- Life- Us- and shared (expanded) His exprerience of Him through Us-through Life.
That seems like a clearer description to what I am getting at. As not am I doing this for you to understand me, I want to understand how I feel- as I have been thinking about this topic, I am knowing my self more. I am thoroughly enjoying this.

CSflim

This board really loves pretending God is a person doesn't it?

I really don't think such obviously human conditions as "motivation" , "death" or "free will" really apply to this meta-being.

__________________

:::OshnSoul:::

^^^Because it's the only way some people can comprehend "God" or refer to "God" as. It's hard to fathom a Being without a specific form, etc. Some cannot see that "God" is our five sense- everything we touch, hear, smell, taste, see.....and also the sixth sense: feeling from within. "God" is an energy- infinite, omnipotent, innevitable.

Mantus

“All I can say is that If I were to just sit here- doing nothing, just BEing, although I know everything- why not put that everything to use?”

Yes that is the question isn’t it? God is just existing in space. Nothing around. Can do anything but already knows all the infinite experiences that will result from any action. Essentially it’s like god already experienced himself. So why lift a finger when all outcomes are already known?

Its not like god can flip a coin, seeing how the result of the toss is already known. There certainly isn’t such a thing as godly indecision as god already knows what the decision will be. God certainly doesn’t do it for the experience as the experience is already there. So god creates the world just for the hell of it (pun intended). So we are the result of a cosmic fluke? The result of an event that did not have reason or purpose?

“That's just what God did. He created offspring- Life- Us- and shared (expanded) His experience of Him through Us-through Life.”

I see what you are trying to say. God created this world and humanity so that we can experience a part of what he experiences. But the question remains: why? What would make a being without any drive to make the choice to create life?

”As not am I doing this for you to understand me, I want to understand how I feel- as I have been thinking about this topic, I am knowing my self more. I am thoroughly enjoying this.”

I feel the same way, debate is a great way to learn about oneself.

:::OshnSoul:::

I don't feel the need to ask why. It's just knowing, understanding, and accepting. God is always questioned, but hardly ever known, understood, and accepted.

Giltwist

Here is where one of my unique perceptions about God comes into play. Having done text RP on MU*s for a couple years, I either got brain damage from monitor radiation or hit upon a really good idea of what the universe is.

Life, the Universe, and Everything, as Douglas Adams would put it, is just one gigundous RP MU*. Before you jump to conclusions about my sanity, hear this reasoning. When you singlehandedly create a fictitious world, through writing, or coding, or whatever, that creation really becomes your baby. You love absolutely and smite anyone who tried to tamper with it. I am sure the admin here can sympathize. Also, when you create such a work, you put a little bit of yourself into it. Everything in your world came from you and is merely an distorted fragment of yourself. In this way, you would sort of be omnipresent, a little piece of you would be in every nook and cranny of your universe. Because it all comes from you, in a way, you are omniscient about your world; you know everything there is to know; you wrote the rules. Well, you wrote the rules, so that makes you ominpotent doesn't it? You want something to happen, you get to write the rules in such a way as it has to happen sooner or later. Sometimes, to help express yourself, you make a character like you - "in your image" you might say. As the work continuous to grow, it begins to take a life of its own, as any author would tell you, the characters, in a way, take over and start writing their own stories. But, in a book, it is only in way. However, having created your world, you make it interactive, make it, say, a MU*, you still have all the power you had before, but you now allow real free will in the form of players. The characters really DO have a life of their own. So, in my mind. The universe is the 'fictional creation' of God. Our souls are the players, and we are, as Shakespeare said, but actors upon an immense stage, so big we don't even know it to be one.

Peace be with you,
G

:::OshnSoul:::

wow.
interesting way to put it.

SVT01Cobra

Didn't God create us to worship him?
That's what the bible says isnt it?

Perhaps God finds humor in some of the things we humans do, or certain animals, like the duck-billed platypus.

Moonduck

Loneliness.

Alternatively, it can be argued that God, knowing all future actions, created man et al simply because he knew that he would eventually do so.

Mantus

Giltwist, I like your idea of things but that would make god limited. Not that I have a problem with a god that has limits, but other people would. I made this thread to show these other people just how flawed their concept of a divine being really is. Every one can say that the words “Supreme being” or “Infinite being” but no one understands them. Like a square with three sides; just because we can say the phrase doesn’t mean we can imagine it or that it can be real.

Moonduck, If god can be lonely would mean that god could be swayed by instinct or some other pressure. If this world were made because god knew that it was going to be made then that would mean god had no choice but to make it.

Giltwist

How does my definition limit god?

Mantus

My apologies, I misunderstood you then.

Giltwist

Well tell me what you thought, it may be enlightening

Mantus

Sure, I will try.

Well this part made me get the idea that we have a god that created all the rules and put the whole world together and therefore has knowledge of how the system works, understanding of how each event is caused and even the ability to foresee future events. Yet doesn’t have the knowledge of the experience of the whole system. Therefore such a god would not actually be fully omnipotent (as in knowing EVERYTHING) but would simply know a hell of allot more then any one else can possibly know. I applied this same train of though to all the other qualities of god. In the end I came up with an image of some one that was the grandes being rather then the ultimate being.

To try to explain this again. I envisioned a god that was the greater then any being in existence yet not greater then the greatest being conceivable…if that makes seince…ahem..yah

Giltwist

I gotcha. You could be right. But go back to teh book example. If all the world is a book, all of it is there in black and white if he wants to read it all.

rogue49

Simply...

To Be.

Remember
All is One
Something from Nothing

Don't you want to Experience It too?

Moonduck

Who says God has a choice? It has been posited in this thread that omniscience is also precognition. If one knows the future, precisely what will occur, one has no choice but to act in a particular way. God, knowing what the future holds by this thread's vague thoughts on omniscience and God, knows he will act in some predetermined manner at any time. Man is created simply because God knew man was to be created.

You seem to imply in your response that God is unswayed, emotionless. Not so, demonstrably not so. There are numerous passages in the Bible regarding God's wrath, God's love, etc. Man was made in God's image insofar as the Bible states, and man is a creature of passions, emotions. That, plus the passages on God's emotional states makes me think that God is an emotional being capable of being swayed or influenced.

I do not personally see the portrayal of the Christian God as an omniscient being. There is a subtle undercurrent in the Bible, a feeling if you will, that God is curious, and does not always know the outcome. I think the omniscience thing is hyperbole. If not, God would likely not have created Satan, nor included the Tree of Knowledge. There is the thought that Man and the Earth are a grand experiment, and that God does not know the outcome (or may have purposefully blinded himself to the knowledge).

No, I've no specific cites for this, merely a feeling from the reading I've done and discussions on the topic.

Mantus

rogue49,

But omniscience allows one to have perfect knowledge of experience without the actual experience. So my original question stands, why bother?


Moonduck,

Demoting god to a non-perfect being does seem to be the simplest solution. It is one that I have nothing against.

Moonduck

Yeah, I honestly have waaaaay more trouble believing in god as perfect than god as imperfect (though I'm not a believer, just a person with a great interest in the subject and a lot of time spent thinking about it all). It just seems more consistent to be somewhat imperfect.

papermachesatan

It seems to me that he hasn't been doing anything at all.

Maybe there's nothing to motivate them and, as a result, we've seen no action from him at all. OR he's powerless. OR is uncertain of the proper action and refusing to act at all as a result.

Can he be omniscent and omnipotent at the same time? Omniscence would suggest that the future is pre-determined. If the future is pre-determined, then God cannot change it and is consequently not ominpotent.

Omnipotence would suggest that the future is not set in stone because God can modify it at will. If the future is changeable, then it cannot be known uphead of time meaning that God is not omniscent.

klt2

If God can be said to have a "motivation", any real description of it is probably more than we can handle.

:::OshnSoul:::

^^^^ Yes. Because of what we have been told. How we've been brought up. Our ancestors, along with all of society have opinions that they announce as the Truth, either being Good or Bad/Evil.
Does that mean that we have to beleive them? Does that mean they're right, even though everyone's opinions are different?
That is why we can't fathom a Force so perfect, so powerful, and so omnipotent that that Force experiences what we experience, that there IS Free Will without punishment or judgement, that we are all the Force along with everything else we see, hear, smell, touch.....that the Force accepts and "loves" everything and everyone no matter what, that everything is ok, but may not be the highest choice, that we are eternal, only in a human costume to experience the physical part of the Force, that there IS no such thing as Good & Evil, Heaven & Hell, and a Superior Being outside of this world.
Some just can't handle the Truth, but they only just forgot it- they will remember once they evolve and pass to the other side, but some is once again forgotten when we are reborn in another form in another life.

Mantus

klt2,

If we cannot understand God then God is of no use to us.

:::OshnSoul:::,

That’s quite a few contradictions there. I don’t see how your statement applies to my question though.

tecoyah

perhaps this "GOD" is preoccupied with some of the other infinate amount of creatures it has created , and just hasn't had the chance or need to get back to us yet.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

tiberry

Mantus - If I follow your logic correctly, you state that since god is omniscient (knows everything), that means that god can experience everything as well.

I say that there is a significant difference between knowing and experiencing. You might KNOW that it is cold outside, but can your body experience the feeling without going outside? Especially without past experience to draw on? God might KNOW that there are an infinite set of possibilities of an infinite set of parameters, but is that the same as experiencing each? I say not.

If everyone in the world was exactly my height, 6 feet 4 inches tall - would I be able to experience being tall? I may conceive of a place where I am 8 feet tall, thereby being taller than everyone else, but its only a concept - not an experience. In order to experience what you ARE you must experience that which you are NOT.

For the very reason that god is omniscient, omnipresent, and about every other "omni" there is, wouldn't this make it very difficult to be self aware? Self aware in the sense of what you called 'experience'. (Some might get caught up in the "that implies god is flawed or imperfect, because of the limitation - but that only holds true if god hadn't 'fixed' the problem.) Self awareness is an ability unique to humans; its what separates us from the rest of the animals on this planet. Its the unique ability to consider yourself as something that you're NOT at any particular moment. The desire to experience that which you are NOT is what motivates US. It gives us the ability to literally CREATE a new reality for ourselves.

The difference between KNOWING and EXPERIENCING is exactly what I think motivates god.

ROGUE 49 stated in another post - "So make the best of it, and experience all you can."

See the connection??

__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.

Mantus

Omniscience is infinite knowledge or at least knowledge of everything that does or can exist. This would include knowledge of all experience as well. Hence while none of us may know what it would be like to fall into the center of the sun, an omniscient being would, even though the actual experience never happened. I would argue that for an omniscient being knowledge would equal to the actual experience, since it would be perfect knowledge with no details left out.

Our power of conception is limited due to our imperfect minds. If we were omniscient such a problem would not occur.

klt2

Mantus,

"If we cannot understand God then God is of no use to us."

Is something of use only if we understand it?

By "no use" do you mean "no value"?

Understanding God, and understanding God's motivation may not be the same thing.

Perhaps before we worry about God's use to us we should think about what use we are to God.

:::OshnSoul:::

What you said to klt2- I don't see how His motivation has anything to do with our use of Him. Besides, what klt2 said I second that. It's how we Use God. The problem is not God having no use for Us- he does, that is why we are here. To re-member our Truth and experiencing our Life in a physical form so that we CAN experience.

What contradictions do you speak of? I was referring to what klt2 was saying before me.

A agree with tiberry. Everything you said sums it up- especially what motivates Him.

Mantus- there IS a difference between knowledge and experience- that is where you may perhaps get a bit confused. God is Omniscient (He is everything and nothing all at once)- but He CHOOSES to experience the knowledge He has. But being Omniscient does NOT mean that God has experienced that knowledge- vast difference. But, to delve into this "knowledge vs. experience", we must think of this: How can you "know" something to its fullest without experiencing it? Sure, you can "feel" or "foresee" soemthing, but have not had the full knowledge of that experience until you actually experience it yourself. Same with God- God foresees things, He feels things- therefore "knows" those things to an extent, but NO ONE can know the experience of it until it happens-e ven God. Even God can know before we're born what we will do in our life, yet he will not know the personal experience of it. And what We experience, He experiences- only in a different light/level of consciousness.

Talking about this is so complicated because the words we use are only links to what is being said and therefore tend to get confusing.

Mantus

klt2,

I asked a question, you said don’t bother you can't understand the answer. If we state an attribute of something then we should understand the ramifications of that attribute, otherwise it has no value, or worse a false value.

Imagine the past ten seconds of your life. Already starting to lose that crispness the current moment always has. You know of what you did, what you thought, and what happened next. Now say some one gave you a choice to re-live those 10 seconds again. You would not have a choice to do something else in those 10 seconds; they would be exactly the same as before. Would you do it? Ask yourself why. I can guarantee you that the every reason you give yourself will involve your limited human nature.

Now imagine an omnipotent being, those 10 seconds do not seem distant, they do not seem far away. They are as real as the current moment. Why do choose to re-live them again? That is omniscience.

The god you describe is not omniscient. Your god has knowledge of cause and effect. It’s like looking at a machine you just built, you know how every part will move and how every part will act and you know of all the variables, yet until you turn it on you will never experience that rush of seeing something you built come alive. An omniscient creature would have knowledge of everything, including that feeling. That’s why ask the question, if you know what that feeling, why bother?

Finally I am not arguing against the concept of God (in this thread ). I am arguing against the concept of an omniscient God - e.i. a God with infinate, or total knowledge.

klt2

Mantus,

1. I never said "Don't bother."

2. I never said, "You can't understand the answer".

3. Please explain how something that we don't understand "has no value, or worse a false value".

Mantus

klt2,

This is how I interpreted your answer to my question: If the description is more then we can handle, then we cannot understand it. Having the knowledge that we cannot understand something allow us to conclude that any further pursuit of the goal is useless.

“has no value” - A word is a symbol. If the symbol does not have a meaning then it has no value. We cannot point to something and use the symbol to describe it until we have a definition of the symbol.

“or worse a false value” – if the definition of the symbol is very loose using the symbol to describe something may cause confusion or deception of other and oneself. For example, if one is confusing “love” with “lust” and says the phrase “I love you” to a partner; deception could occur if the partner defines love as “unselfish caring”.


Me and Chavos talk allot about this in a thread called “God as Art”

:::OshnSoul:::

Mmmm, Mantus, I see your heart yearns for answers, yet you're not asking any.
I am not trying to be "right", as I am sure you are not either.
I may percieve "omniscience" in a different light than you, which is fine. No one said that omniscience requires the knowledge of experience itself, neither does anyone say that it doesn't require it.
Also, why can't God be omniscient yet not omniscient all at the same time?
In no other humanly way can I interpret what I am saying as plain and simple what I am about to post- try this one, open your mind and see how you interpret & feel about this-----
Here is something that struck me, because its something I always felt deep down- then I read it:

"In the beginning, that which is All There Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet all that is could not know itself- because all that is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so...All That Is...was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not........
Now All That Is knew it was all there was- but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term "magnificent" is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not.
Do you understand this?
I think so. Keep going.
Alright.
The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so it could, and would, neveer know Itself from a different point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The Is-Not Is." The Am-Not Am.
Still, the All of Everything chose to know Itself experientially.
This energy- this pure, unseen, unheeard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone else energy- chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.
It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less that the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see magnificence.
And so All That Is divided Itself- becoming, in one glorious moment, that which Is, and that which is this and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.
Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there- but which must exist for here and there to exist.
It is the nothing which olds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts...." -Conversations with God, book 1, pgs. 22-23

tiberry

Ahhhh yes OshnSoul - CWG....I was wondering how many folks that frequent the philosophy (theology?) forum have read these.

What a concept Mr. Walsch lays before us (for us to remember). Its very difficult to find flaw in his logic, lots of answers to seemingly unanswered questions can be deduced using his approach.

I'm not sure how I arrived at the conclusion, but I seem to remember (how ironic) that I had to consider a "model" of 'all that is' outside the bounds of time - that is, that there is only one instant and time is just an illusion. All that happens, has happened, or will happen is happening simultaneously. Kind of hard to conceptualize, but seemed needed to support his view.

Anyway - probably a whole thread's worth of discussion about CWG. Maybe I'll start one...

__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.

tiberry

Perhaps in order to answer the question, "What motivates god?" we need to consider the definition of 'motivate'.

-To provide with a motive - something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act.

At this point, I want to make it clear that the answer is 'the experience of being all that is'. (Notice I didn't say "I think, or I believe" - this is the answer. :P

Now - to even ask this question supposes that god, has at some point 'acted'. Right? Otherwise, why ask. So...what has god done? What act has he commited? Creation? 'Making' us? Creating the universe? God is also supposed to be omnipresent, no? All there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be, all at once. Right?

Then - how can we assume that he's ever lifted a finger? To do so supposes that at some POINT IN TIME (an illusion) something that exists "now" has not existed before - and because we can't conceive of how 'it' got here, then we attribute its creation to god. What an illusion...

NOTHING, let me say it again - NOTHING that exists right.....NOW, has NOT existed already. YET - with every passing moment, we CREATE a new moment. Notice how I had to rely on the illusion of time for that statement?

Thus - I state that even as I write this and you are reading this, it has already taken place. There IS NOTHING NEW...its the illusion of time that clouds our perception. For that reason, even the very answer I've given "to experience" becomes an illusion. Experience is merely remembering what you, I, god, and everything else - already is.

*******************************

Now is that deep or what?

__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.

Lebell

Love and being asked to act motivate God.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mantus

:::OshnSoul:::, thank you for posting that, it is quite beautiful.

This is just starting to get interesting.

Tiberry, So we are no longer looking at a being that created the universe but at a being who is and always was the universe. There is a fundamental problem with this. Either the being always was the universe or it wasn’t. Another words, if everything that will be already is. Then creation never happened. If we remove cause and effect then god loses its place as the creator or as the first cause. So god never created the universe for 'the experience of being all that is', because the universe already exists because it god and god is the universe. Which is a great concept as it completely alleviates any questions of motive or causality.


The major hurdle that I am having trouble with is that of discrediting time. If time is an illusion then movement/action is an illusion. Therefore if there is no movement, then what is this movement that we perceive?

Clearly all that moved was at point A before and is at point B now. If movement doesn’t exist and everything is already (and always was) at point B then point A is an illusion. Everything is a means to an end; we for example, are neither the first nor the last humans. Hence everything is somewhere between A and B. Since there is only B there is no distance between A and B. Therefore nothing that we currently experience exists. But we clearly do exist, hence I must conclude that movement exist. As time is a measurement for movement I must conclude that time exists as well, though out measurements can be flawed.

Now I can comprehend that all time already exists. Yet we humans can still subdivide time it into segments. Hence time is not simply a point. Time is dimensional; we can move thought the dimension of time. Lets say that time is a line (for simplicity's sake) and the present is a point on that line. The past and the future can be perceived by placing point behind or ahead of our point on the line. If this is so we can continue to place one point ahead of another in either direction of time. So a question occurs: either time is infinite or it is finite. If time is finite then it has a beginning and an end, which cannot be because we stated that god, is all that there is. If time has a boundary then we must ask what is beyond that boundary, which is an impossible question with our definition of god. Therefore time must be infinite. If time is infinite then god is in some form infinite.

So we have a very nice version of God. God is infinite, god is all that was and all that ever will be, and therefore there is no beginning and no end. Cool.

:::OshnSoul:::

Wow. Very well said, my friend!

tiberry

First - Thank You :::OshnSoul::: for your words of praise. And I just noticed the quote in your .sig, very eloquent way of describing time.

Now, Mantus- I love your last sentence - "So we have a very nice version of God. God is infinite, god is all that was and all that ever will be, and therefore there is no beginning and no end. Cool." - isn't that the generally accepted idea? I am the Alpha and the Omega and all that?

Your rationalization of time as a means to describe, measure, or account for motion is probably the single most compelling need for the illusion of time, and you put it very well I might add. Without time, motion has no meaning - it is completely contradictory to motion or the need for motion. If you're everywhere already, why move? I have a very difficult time conceiving this as well, as I'm sure most humans do. Nonetheless, I still hold that it is merely an illusion - a perception, or a means to describe or measure that which our senses perceive as motion; however, time is NOT a fundamental property of the universe.

Back to the topic; if we think of time as what it really is, a measuring tool rather than a fundamental property...something that allows us to perceive motion or even creation - its not that far a stretch to say that "Time is an illusion that allows us to perceive ourselves". As you so very correctly described, if we discount time then we loose every possibility for a reference point. "The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so it could, and would, never know Itself from a different point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The Is-Not Is." The Am-Not Am."

Do you see now?

Have you ever noticed how the equations in classical physics (that use time) begin to break down at the speed of light? How about quantum physics - many quantum particles can be proven to exist in multiple locations at the same time - Photons can be 'split' into two particles, travel down fiber-optic paths to locations hundreds of miles apart, yet when one particle is subjected to a particular stimuli (such as spin) the OTHER particle also exhibits these properties. How? [Because - everything is all there is! It doesn't matter how you divide it up or how small the pieces are - its just more apparent in the smaller (quantum) world!)

You'll get no argument from folks MUCH more intelligent than I, that there is something drastically wrong with the way that classical physics accounts for time. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, although infinitely more complicated than I can describe, basically states that by measuring a property of a particle - we inherently change that particle's property. Do you see where I'm going with this? Simply by measuring, in order to perceive, we've created a new reality. Right? Wrong. Remember? Everything that is, always was. Its only our desire to experience (by measurement) that which already is, has allowed us to perceive [a] reality. As long as we can devise infinite means of measuring, we can perceive (or experience) infinite realities.

Hence - my answer to your question. Experience motivates god.

__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.