God would kill himself for sucking so much, if he wasn't catatonic.

magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
God would kill himself for sucking so much, if he wasn't catatonic.

 The attribute of omniscience; knowing all things, simultaneously. In such a state, the privacy of other minds would not exist. Though one could say that knowing the thoughts of another person doesn't dissolve their identity, knowing all future thoughts would. A lack of surprises would be equivalent to a lack of separation; a lack of identity. The processes of discovery, of constantly checking the current state of things against remembered states of things, by which we gauge our presence in the world around us -- how could this exist for a being for which there can be no such discovery? Even a person in solitary confinement has walls by which to measure their existence, and a person in a sensory deprivation chamber hopefully entered with some prior thoughts and sense of themselves. Would thoughts even be possible for an omniscient creature, let alone identity? We could not exist for such a being, and nor could anything in such a state be considered a mind. Knowing everything would destroy the senses. It's only by arbitrarily limiting the idea of omniscience, and therefore contradicting it, that it doesn't seem absurd.

 

If a god is the prime mover, and a god is omnipotent and ominpresent, that means that all of existence is merely the result of this god's direct intervention; there would be nothing but the continued effort of this god. There would be no distinct physical reality to continue without a god's effort. And, since this god also knows everything, there is never a distinction between acting and knowing. Without anything that isn't god, god's existence becomes an undifferentiated nothingness. One would wonder how such a being could exist, let alone be conscious or have the motivation to create anything. What would be the point of creating anything? Discovery?! of what?! impossible!

 

The believers in the room are going to quibble that this isn't their description of a god. It's some people's -- I didn't make this stupid shit up -- but not everyone's. But this distinction is at its best a variation on some ad hoc, the conclusion to some logic game. It's easy for us to speculate, because there's nothing to settle it. It's like -- no, it is, for all practical purposes, an argument about the nature of a complete fiction. The creator of the universe is granted so many wildly varying qualities by adherents, but the most important one to their case is the predominance of its subtlety whenever questions of any substantiation arise.


Religious_Rebel
Religious_Rebel's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2008-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Greetings

Hello and thank you for your commentary.  We fundamentally disagree sometimes but I very much enjoy what you have to say.

I'm wondering what you would say about idea that God created our individual selves for mostly our benefit instead of His, even though many religions say otherwise?  I'd imagine the idea of giving so many gifts to so many people, and even more in the afterlife, would be improbable to get bored of.  Also, since He can see through our eyes and minds so directly, wouldn't He be living the life of every and any person?  I'm throwing out the idea of a state of omnipotence and also every regular existence at the same time, meaning he sees through omnipotent eyes/mind as well as a and every normal one. (Just to clarify.)

I'm very curious about your counter argument so thank you in advance. Smiling

 

 

It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the board My

Welcome to the board Smiling

My first impression is this god concept you describe is the reification of abstract ideas; giving a distinct personality to feelings and concepts. I don't think it's any worse or better than other god concepts, but unless there's specific evidence that necessitates considering the cosmos a personality and deliberate agent, this remains ad hoc. It doesn't matter whether I can take a myth and chip away at it until it's plausible, unless at some point it clearly ceases to be myth.

It could be lack of imagination on my part, but I don't see a solution to the problem of omniscience. It's only the limitation of being that gives anything priority -- like the need to breathe because our specific mechanical function depends on it -- and the attainment of priorities determined how our minds developed.