What I would/wouldn't do as a god
Offline Imagine, for a moment, that yours truly is a god. Mighty, all-powerful, to be feared, etc. etc. etc., but NOT omniscient. I wouldn't like to be omniscient, but only omniconscious.
Here is a list of things I would and wouldn't do:
- I wouldn't make my supreme creation (let's call it "human"
so similar to other animals, but with les hair and a little extra upstairs; my supreme creation would be something so radically different and so great, that no animal/plant would ever dare to challenge it; something powerful, intelligent, with a will to constantly improve and dominate
- I wouldn't ask my supreme creation for anything (such as worship, prayer, sacrifices and other time-consuming, but perfectly useless activities). I'd just let them know that I'm there and I'll give them a comforting sense that they're truly not alone
- I wouldn't create an evil spirit and I wouldn't employ third-party entities to do my work. I'd just do it myself
- I'd set up a way of them to directly communicate with me in times of need
- I'd give my supreme creation more curiosity than a regular human has, and a greater lifespan to fulfill it
- I'd act directly when something goes awfully wrong
- I wouldn't waste my time into giving them holy books and sets of holy laws, I'd let them evolve a sense of morality on their own
- I wouldn't promise them eternal bliss or damnation; I'd simply keep their "souls" (whatever that might be) so that they will constantly be reincarnated and no human will start from scratch, except for the "new" souls
- I wouldn't be mad at any of their actions, and I wouldn't try to destroy any of their work, except when it endangers the whole creation
- since I'm not omniscient, I'd give them free will
- I'd set their goals into attempting to become their own gods: powerful, mighty, etc.
- I'd give them a possibility to challenge me when they think they've evolved enough as a whole, and I'd gently return them to their original status, showing them where they are wrong and sending them back to the drawing boards (of course, they will never win, but they will try and they will evolve)
- I'd give them all the concept of infinity and how to deal with it
- their average IQ should be far greater than the average human (which, unfortunately...)
- I'd periodically check on their "health"
The list stops here. How many of these does any other god (not) do ?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
I wouldn't create a hell. If someone was bad enough to not deserve to go to the "reward" place, I'd either just make them cease to exist or send them back to Earth or to a "nuetral" place without causing useless torture.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Can you please list the differences between the two, because as far as I can tell not all Christians and Theists alike agree on what the term "Omniscience" means.
Why not? Why can't it be similar to animals, but also above them at the same time? Why is domination one of the primary characteristics?
And what if these activties (sacrifice etc.) are necessary to grasp who or what you are since I assume you will not be restricted to Natural laws and transcend them? And how is prayer 'useless and time consuming' if it is in fact communication with God? And how do you know that Christians and other faiths don't already lack lonliness in believing their God exists?
Okay...So explain how you would do these things yourself.
Cool, but I already have that
More curiosity? Is that even concievable (as though it can be measured). And why is the greater lifespan needed if you're already going to give them "greater curiosity". I would assume you only need one or the other to achieve said goal; whatever goal that may be.
Even when you don't have to? And if you are not Omniscient by a modern understanding or reformed understanding how can you possibly know that your actions will not cause more harm rather than good?
Let them 'evolve' a sense or morality? So morality would be subjective, yet you still want them to act a certain way...interesting. Then I really don't see how Holy Laws would be a 'waste of time'.
Why? And doesn't this violate your objections to omniscience and free will? What if they want eternal bliss? What if they don't want to be reincarnated?
Except that you would put yourself in that situation to begin with by allowing them to evolve their morals on their own, and then turn around and slap them even though they had the freedom and copacity to be a 'supreme creation'.
I really don't want to dwell on the whole "Omniscience" part of a PKG God any further in this (since it's a general list of things and not really a debate, though I am curious to some of your opinions), so I'll just say "okay".
Why 'set' their goals if they have free will and are allowed to develope their own sense of morality?
So what was the point of not giving them Holy Laws and allowing them to develope their own morals to begin with? So you just create them to defeat them, coercing them into a paradigm that they can never achieve?
I don't understand. Please clarify.
I guess that's cool, though I don't understand the meaning for it or what's wrong with the current average IQ.
Okay...
I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.
The difference is that omniscience includes "...and all things that will ever be".
`Cause nobody saw himself winning a struggle with a lion or a hipo 2000 years ago. It happened, but in a relatively low percentage of cases.
These activities won't. I make the rules, remember?
Prayer isn't useless IF it is communicating with God. But only IF.
Kids don't lack loneliness in believing in Santa as well.
Hypothetically: And Rigor, the God, thought to himself "The whole world will be suddenly aware that Susan of New York is to bear a son that I am to design myself", and so it was. (note: naming similarity is purely coincidental)
Good for you, rummy! How about sharing it? There are people in need around this world, like about all the rest that do not believe in your God (at least 75%, depending on religion).
Greater lifespan AND greater curiosity, because I, as god, want to.
Greater curiosity? Yes, it is conceivable.
How many times did you meet people that said "Don't tell me, I don't want to know?" (joking, of course)
"Even if I don't have to" actually violates the term "terribly wrong". And I can always restore them to the original state for more experimentation. I am omnipotent, remember?
I don't want THEM to act in a certain way. I will create nature in such a way that they will learn to survive in it by themselves. The fact that such a thing influences the way they think and evolve is another problem. And that isn't much different to THIS world either. I still don't see anyone winning a fight with a lion or hipo bare-handedly.
Then good for them. I'll give them eternal bliss, if they are so limited as to not want to evolve, challenge me and develop their own eternal bliss. The more work put in something, the sweeterthe reward. A higher IQ should solve this problem, though.
Let them become supreme creators themselves. A little quality company is always appreciated. Why should I slap them?
In order to render your response three quotations ago useless. Besides, since we have natural instincts and limitation over which nobody can go without dying, I fail to see what would be so radically different from this world on the matter.
Because I don't really know they will never win. I am not omniscient, you know. I thought that was self-obvious, but I probably should put a "probably" there, just to make it more obvious.
Constructive criticism is the basis of improvement, you know.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Do you see any problem with more IQ? I don't.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/