Lets assume God does exist and is the creator of the Universe and everything in it,the question is,is he still on a learning curve,for instance,does he look at us and think "Ahhhh the internet,what a great idea,why didn't i think of that"
Lets assume God does exist and is the creator of the Universe and everything in it,the question is,is he still on a learning curve,for instance,does he look at us and think "Ahhhh the internet,what a great idea,why didn't i think of that"
You're basically saying god is the past and the present, but not the future. But I suspect he wouldn't be a god/supreme being if he did not know everything (or in other words, did not know what will happen in the future). Doesn't fit the popular description of God anyway. A lesser god, perhaps...
The Abrahamic God? He knows everything, which would include the future.
(Being omnipresent in time also helps.)
But for a different version of God, we first need to define God before being able to figure out if he/she/it knows the future.
The earth is the centre of the world. The sun is the greater light and the moon is lesser light.
The earth encircle the sun and there are trillions of suns in the universe.
The moon is just a satelite of earth and there are trillions of moons in the universe.
God created the world in 6 days approximately 6000 years ago (according to Christian scholars).
The universe was created more than 4 billions years ago and it is still expanding.
God created mankind.
Mankind come from evolution over a billion years ago and the DNA technology has proved that
we are derived from simphanze and all mammals originated from rat-like animals.
These proved that the Abrahamic God could make mistake.
Take a look of what is written in Tripitaka (The Buddhism Holy Book).
There is no contrary with the science. The creation of the universe, the galaxies, how did every thing start in the earth (evolution), all can be found in Tripitaka.
That is pretty contrary to the science that I know....
Hm, since time does not exist I presume IT (GOD) has a plan. BUT this universe works at random so predicting can not be ...
Still all knowledge is all there - so there is not a learning curve - the soul must know everything.
Back to basics - God it just experiencing - not learning...
Have you ever heard of Astral Journey (out of body experience)? If you have reached certain level in meditation your spirit can travel to anywhere you want including the moon and the sun within seconds.
Of cource this sounds wierd if we try to understand this thing with the current knowledge of science.
Can you imagine what would the scientist say 200 years ago (before Darwin) when you told them that in Tripitaka (Buddist Holy Book) it is said that men and other creatures are originated from tiny living beings?
Can you imagine what would scientist say 100 years ago (before Hubbel) when you told them that in Tripitaka it is said that our universe keeps expanding and contracting with no beginning and end.
Maybe they would say you were nuts.
Why? Because the scientist's knowledge at that time could not digest these theories.
Same thing with the Astral Journey, the scientist now simply can not understand this theory. Maybe it will take another century before someone can prove it with a new kind of technology.
Result - Negative. We know quite a bit about the universe and I find the notion of any signal - call it spirit or whatever - travelling at >c to be highly improbable. The notion that this could then broadcast back to a conscious mind here is so improbable that I file that under the general heading of 'woo woo'.
I can well imagine what scientists would have said to that 200 years ago. They would have been entirely unimpressed and would have pointed out that this was little more than a modified version of Aristotle's theory of transition, dating from several hundred years BCE.
If he was a well rounded scientist he would also point out that this is exactly the sort of cosmological model one would expect from Buddshism - the emphasis on cycle and rebirth is more to do with the basic philosophy than any scientific understanding. A nineteenth century scientist would probably have asked for some evidence for this 'theory' and asked if the theorist had studied the work of Herschel and other notable theorists.
So I'm asking out of curiosity more than being antagonistic but what equipment is able to detect any conceivable energy transfer?
Few questions that come to mind are what about solar energy, and all sorts of other energy that are transferred to us everyday? Don't we have particles passing through us all the time from space? Neutrinos, and other such sub atomic particles that pass through the earth? I would assume that means they pass through me, since I'm kinda in the way
Really, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here but there are quite a few things that have me questioning your assertion that there is no energy transfer from any remote location. I know you know about the mean solar day, feel free to correct me on my incorrect usage of any terminology! But basically the reality is the SETI receivers when put in place to listen to the radio waves in space almost every 24 hours they experienced a huge static influx, incredible amount of noise. They came to figure out that the spike in radio transmissions was due to the period of time that the dishes passed through the line of the center of the milky way galaxy. The huge influx of radio transmissions came from the combination of all the suns in the galaxy. Because part of the solar energy is contains radio frequencies....right? Also, it is not every 24 hours, so throughout the year the solar midnight so to speak occurs at different times through out the day and night. I think it is like 7 minutes off, so the start of the solar year when midnight and solar midnight are the same, and the next night solar midnight is at 11:53, and then 11:46 etc etc.
Radio waves pass through walls right? So wouldn't that mean, that just like the radio waves that bombard us through the man made transmitters, the radio waves from the center of the galaxy would also do the same every 23 hours and 53 minutes?
Now if they contain knowledge or not, is another question? SETI sure hasn't found anything...yet
Oh and I have to add, if scientist from another world came and monitored our radio transmissions, they might conclude that they don't contain any knowledge either
Energy (including solar) is transferred by photons over long distances. We can detect photons with exquisite accuracy - even down to a few single photons. The whole EM spectrum is photonic.
Neutrinos are uncharged and are NOT bosonic - they don't generally transfer or mediate force/energy.
The fact that billions of them pass straight through you constantly should tell you how much energy is being transferred - bugger all.
The SETO example is confused and irrelevant. Radio waves are photons. Can we detect radio waves? Hey, guess what, we even have a device specially for the job - called a RADIO.
The fact that SETI are looking across a sphere of radius 13.7 billion light years makes detecting energy which might be a sign of intelligence (and yes, obviously we CAN detect it - that is what SETI do) a teeny weeny bit more tricky than testing some paranormal fan who claims he can astrally project. He can't!
PS - change the neutrinos figure. I said 'billions constantly'. I should have said about 50 trillion per second...my mistake.
As I said before, only time will tell whether yours or mine is correct.
Time has told already. There is no evidence of such a thing and the studies that have been done reveal no effect. Those that said they had hovered above their body couldn't describe anythng that the body itself could not have seen or heard. When asked to describe objects that had deliberately been placed around the room, out of sight of the patient, not one of them could even get the type of object, never mind describe it.
I have no doubt that some deep mental processes are taking place, but there is no spirit or consciousness or soul 'flying through walls' or to different parts of the world, or to anywhere exept where it always was - in the skull.
The quote itself is not unscientific. It is just definition of psychic power. There can be definition for something that does not exist. For example you can define God, but it does not necessarily mean that God exists.
How can you tell the time had told already? The time is not finished yet and it will never will. And how can you tell it isn't true from several experiments. Just because science can not prove that ghost does not exist then there is no ghost in this world. Just because science can not prrove that internal power exist then it does not exist. Same thing, just because science can not prove for NOW that somebody can perform an astral journey then it does not exist. There are many people I believe (especially Tibetan monks) can perform astral journey, they just keep low profile.
The bottom line is science can prove many things but it can not prove everything yet. There are many supernatural things that can not be proved by science now but I believe they exist.
No, the bottom line is that science doesn't try to prove things are true because you can't. It tries to prove them false. So far everytime it has tested paranormal abilities of ANY type it has shown they are not there.
Can you prove to me that there isn't a small teapot in orbit around Saturn? Nope, you can't. Is it therefore reasonable to believe their IS a teapot in orbit around Saturn?
It is funny how whenever someone makes a claim, suddenly the people who can really do what is claimed are 'keeping a low profile', or don't do it in public, or aren't interested in showing off, or one of a hundred other excuses.
We have a pretty good idea what the laws of physics are and contrary to what you might think, they don't change much or often. New theories come along occasionally but they never contradict old theories (how could they - if a theory works today it will still work tomorrow) the new theory will normally add something to the old or mean that it works over a greater range of conditions.
So Einstein didn't show that Newton was all wrong, he showed that at extreme speeds, where Newton's maths produced errors, Relativity didn't - so we still use Newton and the maths still works out OK, but Einstein's Relativity means we can also look at objects travelling huge speeds and distances.
Now, any projection of sensory equipment, be it a microphone or a spirit, involved energy. The only type of energy we haven't got a decent model for is Dark energy and that is sooo tiny that it couldn't possibly transmit a signal over a single millimetre, let alone bigger distances. The other ways it could happen all involve photons and we can measure them. No measurement, no astral travelling (except in the mind, which is still pretty powerful).
Sorry, I don't share your opinion. There are lots of things that can't be explained by science. I did experience two supernatural phenomenons (of course you won't believe it).
It isn't a case of believing you or not. I don't believe anything controversial without some evidence and, frankly, anyone who does is a fool.
The problem for the paranormalist is that they tend to make the same mistake you have - science isn't a subject. It isn't a body of knowledge. It is a philosophy, a technique, a method, a viewpoint.
Science is how you takle a question and in that sense there are very few things that are not subject to scientific examination and conclusion.
Science cannot, yet, fully address humanistic concerns - truth, justice, love, morality. Science can certainly inform all of these, but ultimately they all depend on a person deciding to take a particular course or not.
Everything else - absolutely everything, is subject to scientific method, AS LONG AS IT CAN BE TESTED.
So, in this case we have astral travel. This holds that certain people can project a non-material part of their consciousness to distant parts and return it. The ONLY question, therefore, is - does this travel have any interaction with the physical univese? If it does, we can measure it.
So, if the monk says he can project onto another plane and observe something in the real physical universe, then we can test it. We simply set up a scenario where we know what is there, and ask the monk to describe it. Simple and fair. This type of experiment has been done with all sorts of remote viewing claimants - from secular psychics to relgious monks. Non of them can do it.
You say you experienced two paranormal events. I say that the liklihood is:
a) You experienced something that you could not explain and therefore assumed it must be paranormal
b) Your perception of the event and subsequent memory of it is partial, innacurate and misleading.
How do I know, without you even telling me more? I know because EVERYONE's perception and memory is partial, flawed and misleading. Magicians make a living using that basic fact.
People have the strange idea that in any crime, eye-witnesses are fantastic sources of evidence that win the case. The detective shows often give that impression - a surprise eye-witness wraps up the case.
It isn't so. Eye witness testimony is not even considered enough to convict unless it is supported by other evidence. Why? Because we KNOW eye witnesses are often completely and utterly wrong - despite honestly thinking they saw what they say they saw.
That is why science requires more - measurement, not just 'seeing' and 'remembering'.
If you can show me one single piece of evidence for astral projection then we have somethng to talk about, otherwise there is nothing really worth saying...
I think we don't have a common ground here, so I'll keep my opinion to my self and you can keep yours. I will not continue this discussion because it will be worthless.
fair enough. There are some things which debate cannot resolve. The issue of faith vs science is one example. There is no mutual meeting point for any discussion since the faithful don't need or want evidence and the scientist cannot function properly without it.
OK you are forgiven on the number of neutrinos that pass through my body .... billion trillion... what the hay! Who's counting?
Really a radio receiver can detect radio waves who'd have thought it? (sarcasm)
So the device you were speaking of that can measure any conceivable energy transfer is a device for detecting photons?
OK, I got that, also, I thought that the devices that can detect photons could actually detect a single photon. Is that not true?
So I see where you are coming from on the point about no conceivable energy transfer being picked up by a psychic. They used a photon detector to test if there was any sort of energy transfer to or from the body, and so they deduced that there is none, from the experiments they preformed.
Hummm....that sure blows the "It's all light"assertion by the great mystics of our time out of the water THE LIGHT.....FOLLOW THE LIGHT.....
I have my faith about things beyond this world and god and such, they are my own, and not subject to discussion. That is simply and humbly my personal feelings on the subject.
As far as this discussion goes, I wasn't really interested in if god is still learning or not, the point is that I am still learning, and I can't comment on anyone or thing else. I was just more curious as to what the device was that can measure any conceivable energy transfer. I am aware that the EM spectrum is photonic so it stands to reason that would be the device they used.
As far as astral projection, paranormal experiences, and psychic powers you don't need to convince me that so much of what is written and said is just complete garbage. No arguments there, why is it that some psychic predicting events is so often wrong? Or like your remote viewing examples of what they claim, and what is measured is so far off, it is crazy!
If psychics are so damn great and powerful and are so tuned in, and can see the future, and predict events......then how come they all aren't rich and have won the lottery numerous times?
Don't you also love the excuses....I prefer poverty
The stupid thing is all the believers, all anyone has to do is write a book with a lot of fancy baseless claims and say he is a prophet and anyone will follow them and believe in what they say. And as far as that goes, all anyone has to do is put on a nice set of clothes or a lab coat, and say, "I'm the authority" and everyone else will parrot their words endlessly, even decades after what they said has been proven wrong
(This isn't a reply to the conversation, but to the original post)
If you are referring to the Abrahamic God, then I would say certainly not. Otherwise, why would he need a New Testament? If he knew everything, he would know the perfect way to set up the religion so that there wouldn't be a need for a New Testament.
Also, if he knew all and he cared about his creations being saved, why would he have went through the New Testament killing millions of people when his supposed nemesis only killed seven? Why would he send his message through prophets who would corrupt it with their use of words that lead to contradictions in The Bible? No. Despite the belief of many religious people who follow the god in mention, I think there are too many things that show he couldn't logically know everything unless he simply knew everything while being an idiot.
Well yes and no. The real answer is it depends on the energy of the photon. High energy photons (x-ray and above) are no bother - we can detect single ones of them with just our eyes in some conditions and certainly with kit.
Visible light photons are much harder - much lower energy. Normally a photo-multiplier is used but I'm pretty sure they need more than a single photon to 'trip' normally.
There is kit which can do it though, I believe:
As for the psychic brigade - I have little sympathy and much contempt for the great majority. There are some who are convinced (or convince themselves) that they have 'the gift', but mostly what we see is TV entertainers using obvious tricks like cold-reading, audience plants, prior research and the rest. Scumbags IMHO, preying on grief and naivity for profit.
Hey great link, thanks
I live near Boulder Colorado which seems to be a gathering spot for them. I've only met one person that had an undeniable gift, she used to put chills up my spine. Most of them were hopeless liars and in it for the money, and like you pointed out - preying on peoples guilt, fear, grief, and desires. I was totally shunned from a few groups for being the a$$hole that I am and calling them out on their BS. Like being shunned from a bunch of freaks hurt my feelings any
Did you ever see the Southpark episode about Jonathan Edwards? It was freaking hilarious, they even had the books that are published on how to pull the psychic scam, ask general questions, give vague answers, let the people fill you in and how to get them to talk thinking he gave them the answers.
They voted him the biggest douche in the universe
Yes, I remember that episode quite well....it pretty much summed up my feelings towards these spiritualist-types.
I have also met one who was good (I don't believe that any of them are 'gifted' in the sense I think you mean) - a chap called Kevin Preston. He isn't a spiritualist - quite the opposite. He became incensed after his sister got addicted to consulting one of these woo-woo merchants and spent thousands of pounds on 'readings'. He decided to show her how they were conning her and he got right into it - spent a few years researching, practicing and developing his skills. He is now awesome. He can take anyone off the street and within minutes they are completely convinced that he has supernatural powers. It is mostly cold-reading, but scientifically done. I spent a couple of hours chatting to him at a party after he did his act and the amount of work is phenomenal. He has worked out different series of interlocking questions, depending on the age and sex of the person, which are designed to be right about 80% of the time with one significant detail (that is way better than you get from people like Edwards). Even when you know that it is a technique ('trick' is too dismissive for what he does) then it is still astonishing. He has had to memorise not only hundreds of questions, but the different branches between them all, depending on the observation and the feedback he gets.
Fortunately he is a man after my own heart - no time for con merchants - so he uses his skills to debunk the woo-woo merchants by doing what they do, but MUCH better, and then showing you how. He could have made a fortune if he were not a man of integrity, and he has my admiration (as I told him).
God is the omniscient one. He knows everything from past to the future. I believe that since he know my future he has already a plan for me so I must follow that plan that will lead me directly to him. It is an easy life once you submit to the plan of God for it is already perfect for you. Yes, many people have different life but all will end up in heaven if they just acknowledge God. You really need faith here. To believe in something that you don't see is hard. It's more than believing you have brain even if you don't see it. All people can be successful without God. All they have to is to be hardworking, disciplined, and focused on their goals. But there is no heaven for them. Believing is free it will not hurt you. Heaven is also free just believe in the Maker and Giver of life.
a) If your future is predetermined then why do you think you deserve to go to heaven?
b) The fact that you might find it an 'easy life' is not indication that others agree.
c) The notion that the plan is perfect would seem to be rather questionable given what I see of life (and what I see of Christians). I would say it was a very poor sort of life. Everything you think you need to know is in a collection of scrolls from millenia ago. I find that rather pathetic to be honest - salvation for serfs. Do what the bible says (or what you think it says) and don't bother with all that science stuff which has a completely different and far more interesting and useful story of creation....
The end is archetypal - you have to belong to my club, even if you are a good person, otherwise you will suffer eternally. It was probably once insulting and worth responding to, but nowadays it is more like a really bad pun - you just groan at it and hope for something better.
God is so real to me and the devil is always a bastard wicked devil full of evil doings.... I love God because is a wonderful father that wont let us his children to fall into danger... The bibles tells us that God is so good that he will not allow anything wrong to happen to his children... if you find and thing in life so difficult ere is a solution for you. just take it to the lord and i promise you that everything will be alright.
Don't you watch the news?
Even the Abrahamic god (Yeweh, God, Jehovah, Allah, etc) is learning, despite being omnipresent/omnipotent. The shift in outlook between old testament/Torah, new testament and Qaran clearly show learning, growth and change. If Gid were not learning, there would be no need for change or revision.
I don't agree. I think the shift in attitude personality, outlook, demands, and objectives indicates not that God is learning but that what we have is two very distinct and dissimilar Gods. The only other way they can be reconciled is a complete collapse of the personality - what we would now call a complete breakdown.
Yaweh - Jealous (look at the commandments), sadistic (look at the trick he plays on Abraham), murderous (look anywhere in the OT), childish (love me or I will scream and shout), insecure (constantly looking for worship)
Jesus - Fairly mellow hippy-type.
So how can that change happen? Simple. The change reflects the mindset of the people who create the two Gods. Yaweh is created in times of danger, short and brutal lifes, hunger and slavery.
Jesus is created at a relative crisis point when the Jews are feeling that they can and must stand-up to the Romans. They are becoming self-confident and more assured. Their lives are much easier than those of their ancestors in egypt and they have time to sit and think about things. There are two types of hero that could emerge - the warrior hero and the philosopher hero. There were examples of both, but the Jesus story wins out.
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." ~ Mark Twain
I understand that, but this thread is working within the framework of god existing, being a, well, being, rather than the construct of culture. At least, that's my interpretation, and is how I framed my response. If the Abrahamic god exists, it has been framed that it is eternal, and we don't have multiple gods, but the one being who has changed over time. The change can be seen as personal growth, or it can be seen as a simple change in perspective, but, both of these ideas include the concept of learning as their catalyst; beings tend to remain relatively static unless something new is learned to cause a change.
Within their framework, there is no room for two distinct god forms, one replacing the other, then being replaced again by an intermediate form (Allah is somewhat intermediate of the new and old testament god forms). They quite clearly assert that their god always was and is the only god; there's no room for other beings to come in and out of favour.
Other pantheons show clear learning processes within their gods, however. Of course, in most of these groups, the gods have far more human qualities and natures; they're fallible and are "open" to lessons. Even animistic outlooks can be seen to have learning spirits, with spirits learning and adapting to the changing world.
Ahh...OK....me and my literality eh?
OK...well, growth would be one way of putting it - certainly an improvement in Deity-Personal relationships. Here's where I see another problem, though. The Trinity. Now obviously I'm not going to go off on another 'literal' sidetrack if I can avoid it, but the notion of the Trinity is, I think, deeply problematic to any 'growth' hypothesis. Anyway, disregarding that, let's see if an hypothesis can be at least framed....
Yaweh is powerful, but not omniscient/omnipotent, and he 'grows' in personal/relationship understanding - that could fly.
Yaweh is omniscient/omnipotent but changes his perspective very suddenly. Can't see how that can fly...
God is Omniscient
The attribute of God by which God perfectly and eternally knows all things which can be known, past, present, and future. God knows how best to attain His desired ends.
This, like omnipresence, demonstrates that man cannot hide from God because God knows all things. He knows the number of hairs on each head, He knows the heart and thoughts of every man. Just because no man is around to see us do wrong doesn't mean nobody saw it happen - God did. The proverbial tree falling in the forest that doesn't make a sound because no man was there to see it or know about it falling at that time, God sees and knows. Our intentions in the things we do are known to God. We need to be sure that our attitudes are congruent with our actions because God knows when we are doing things for the wrong reasons or motives.
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
Known to God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.
II Kings 13:19
And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice.
Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith the Lord, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon's princes, then shall this city be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand. And Zedekiah the king said unto Jeremiah, I am afraid of the Jews that are fallen to the Chaldeans, lest they deliver me into their hand, and they mock me. But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver thee. Obey, I beseech thee, the voice of the Lord, which I speak unto thee: so it shall be will unto thee, and thy soul shall live
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickened the dead, and calleth those things which be not though as they were.
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
I Samuel 23:5-14
So David and his men went to Keilah, and fought with the Philistines, and brought away their cattle, and smote them with a great slaughter. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand. And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars. And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. Then said David, O Lord God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake. Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the Lord said, He will come down. Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will deliver thee up. Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth. And David abode in the wilderness in strong holds, and remained in a mountain in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God delivered him not into his hand.
God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. He knows when we do things for the wrong reasons and when we do things for the right reasons. All things we do should be to serve Him and bring glory to Him.
Since God knows everything I do and the reasons or motives I have for doing them, I will commit myself to doing everything as if I were doing it for God Himself. I will yield myself to Him daily, that I may do what He wants me to do and be what He wants me to be.
THERE NOTHING FOR HIM TO LEARN.
If God knows everything that you will do then you have no free will and it is useless to 'commit yourself' to doing anything because it is already decided.
Hell is referred to (or not, as it were) 3 times in Rev. 3 is used as a metaphorical absolution throughout the whole book. It's a greek numerology style beginning early on in Gen. and it carries on throughout. Peter denied 3 times, Christ fell 3 times, 3 crucifixions, etc. It represent the solid figure of God (immovable object) so the numerology has algebraic roots in that 2 is the symbol of the square or plane contents (X2) and 3 is the symbol of the cube or solid contents (X3), It also uses 3 enties of the trinity to stress the absolution of the matter, not that everyone can understand or even notice these simple themes. haha... But it also says in Rev that the devil/great dragon was hurled down to earth. 3 times. No hell. Earth. This "burn in hell" threat I've been led to believe (by non Christians!) is bullshit. You're in hell right now. And you'd know that already, had you read your St John.
To address the topic, I usually think my earthly logic fails in determining thought on behalf of God, but in this scenario, I think he probably doesn't need to learn a great deal, so by that rationale he's probably learning right now. You knew that was gonna happen, you, you...Omnipotent being! Ah yes, yes I did. More tea vicar?
God is a supernatural being. He is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient. Which means He all powerful, He is present everywhere and He knows every thing. He has nothing more to learn.
He must be *really* bored.
If God is omniscience and omnipotent then can God set a question which he cannot answer?
if God is omnipresent then presumably God is in hell?
If God is omnipresent then God must be present in evil.
If God is omniscient then man cannot have free will....
Or, as Shelley put it: