What I would/wouldn't do as a god

Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
What I would/wouldn't do as a god

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&quotEye-wink 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/


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't create a hell. If

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


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

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.

 

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.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
Here is a list of things I would and wouldn't do:

- I wouldn't make my supreme creation (let's call it "human&quotEye-wink 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

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?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- 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

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?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- 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

Okay...So explain how you would do these things yourself.

Rigor_Omortis wrote:
- I'd set up a way of them to directly communicate with me in times of need

Cool, but I already have that Sticking out tongue

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- I'd give my supreme creation more curiosity than a regular human has, and a greater lifespan to fulfill it

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.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- I'd act directly when something goes awfully wrong

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?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- 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

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'.

Rigor-OMortis wrote:
- 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

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?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- 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

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'.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- since I'm not omniscient, I'd give them free will

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".

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- I'd set their goals into attempting to become their own gods: powerful, mighty, etc.

Why 'set' their goals if they have free will and are allowed to develope their own sense of morality?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- 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)

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?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- I'd give them all the concept of infinity and how to deal with it

I don't understand. Please clarify.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- their average IQ should be far greater than the average human (which, unfortunately...)

I guess that's cool, though I don't understand the meaning for it or what's wrong with the current average IQ.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
- I'd periodically check on their "health"

Okay...

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Can you please list

Quote:
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.

The difference is that omniscience includes "...and all things that will ever be".

Quote:
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?

`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.

Quote:
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?

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.

Quote:
Okay...So explain how you would do these things yourself.

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)

Quote:
Cool, but I already have that :p

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).

Quote:
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.

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)

Quote:
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?

"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?

Quote:
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'.

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.

Quote:
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?

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.

Quote:
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'.

Let them become supreme creators themselves. A little quality company is always appreciated. Why should I slap them?

Quote:
Why 'set' their goals if they have free will and are allowed to develope their own sense of morality?

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.

Quote:
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?

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.

Quote:
I don't understand. Please clarify.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Quote:
I guess that's cool, though I don't understand the meaning for it or what's wrong with the current average IQ.

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/