Broad Religious questions
- Thread starter Necronic
- Start date
- Status
D
Dusty668
Being perfect they would evaluate all options for the perfect outcome, this would seem to be less of making a choice as eliminating unsuitable options. For instance you would not call the choice between a yummy sandwich or a stop sign a "Choice for dinner".
Decisions could be made, but it would not seem to be a choice, so I would say, they can't.
Decisions could be made, but it would not seem to be a choice, so I would say, they can't.
E
Element 117
In that context the act of giving free will to others is a choice. The question in the op becomes irrelevant if the deity doesn't really care what humans consider in terms of perfect.
C
Chibibar
Are you saying a perfect being (i.e. God(s)) making a choice? Personally, I don't think a perfect being would ever make a choice. They are perfect and thus there is no choice
E
Element 117
A predetermined event that the deity chose to make happen. Preplanned or not, decisions and choices were made.
C
Chibibar
Heh. I would like to think that there are many paths of choices, while an omnipotent being KNOWS all the answers/choices of each person, the person making the decision does have choices to choose from. Thus, it is "possible" to end up at different final destination depending on your personal choice BUT at the time of making the choice, the omnipotent being knows the outcome of that choice, but if a different choice is made, then a different solution. It is kinda hard to explain it, but it kinda make sense in my head at the moment.
E
Element 117
If a deity is both omnipotent and omniscient, the question becomes a variant of can god create a rock he cannot move, ie: can the deity surprise itself? There are semantic curve answers to this question, but it might be hard to logically prove
Necronic
Staff member
The reason I asked that question was to discuss this concept:
The personification of the god-head.
With the assumption that the god-head is omnipotent and omniscient, it is by definition infinite. To be infinite means that it can't be assigned qualities, as qualities would limit it. I find most major religions do this, which as far as I can tell is blasphemy.
If you remove the personification and the limitations it provides then all sorts of other interesting issues start to arise. The next one I want to talk about is Evolution vs Creationism.
Creationist logic is a result of the personification of the god-head. People think that it would create in the same way we do. Even the word create is itself logically flawed, as the god-head is infinite and therefore cannot create, as creating would show that before the creation he was incomplete/imperfect, which is impossible. For the sake of this discussion I will use the term create, because there are no words for the alternative. Anyways, when you start to consider the god-head as a formless infinite then you can easily marry the concepts of Evolution and Creationism.
If you are perfect, then you would create through perfection. You would create a system that was perfect. I perfect system is simultaneously infinitely simple and infinitely complex. Its foundation would be a singular truth, and from that truth you would be able to derive a system of infinite complexion. One important aspect of perfection is that in it there can exist no exceptions. If it allows no exceptions then it allows no interaction. It is self sustaining. This again is where traditional creationism fails, as it exists only as a series of exceptions and interactions.
The only way for a god-head to create, then, would be through a system like...you guessed it. Evolution.
Evolution does nothing to remove the existence of a god-head. If anything it actually reinforces that concept, as it is a system that seems to be within the definition of perfection, and perfection begets a god-head.
------------------
Now, another question. Can a human mind truly conceive of the infinite or its inverse, oblivion?
The personification of the god-head.
With the assumption that the god-head is omnipotent and omniscient, it is by definition infinite. To be infinite means that it can't be assigned qualities, as qualities would limit it. I find most major religions do this, which as far as I can tell is blasphemy.
If you remove the personification and the limitations it provides then all sorts of other interesting issues start to arise. The next one I want to talk about is Evolution vs Creationism.
Creationist logic is a result of the personification of the god-head. People think that it would create in the same way we do. Even the word create is itself logically flawed, as the god-head is infinite and therefore cannot create, as creating would show that before the creation he was incomplete/imperfect, which is impossible. For the sake of this discussion I will use the term create, because there are no words for the alternative. Anyways, when you start to consider the god-head as a formless infinite then you can easily marry the concepts of Evolution and Creationism.
If you are perfect, then you would create through perfection. You would create a system that was perfect. I perfect system is simultaneously infinitely simple and infinitely complex. Its foundation would be a singular truth, and from that truth you would be able to derive a system of infinite complexion. One important aspect of perfection is that in it there can exist no exceptions. If it allows no exceptions then it allows no interaction. It is self sustaining. This again is where traditional creationism fails, as it exists only as a series of exceptions and interactions.
The only way for a god-head to create, then, would be through a system like...you guessed it. Evolution.
Evolution does nothing to remove the existence of a god-head. If anything it actually reinforces that concept, as it is a system that seems to be within the definition of perfection, and perfection begets a god-head.
------------------
Now, another question. Can a human mind truly conceive of the infinite or its inverse, oblivion?
C
Chibibar
Necronic: but that is kinda "flaw" in my mind. Assuming we can even comprehend the level of "perfect" or even get a glimpse of it. What if the perfection is boring? no random, no chaos, no choices/chance formula.
So in a sense, God could create imperfection to see what imperfect can do for God's personal enjoyment
So in a sense, God could create imperfection to see what imperfect can do for God's personal enjoyment
I would say that your definition of "perfection" is flawed. Wouldn't the perfect action of a perfect being be to create? Or at the least, couldn't it be? Even suffering, death, misery, etc, could be means to show the difference. All white may begin to look the same, but white contrasted to black looks all the more brilliant. That's not to say that white is the SAME as grey, if there is no other, but only that contrast itself is lost without darker things.
So I would marry perfect being with perfect action, and that can be to create flaws deliberately to emphasize certain other aspects of creation.
As for the omnipotence & omniscience, what about the possibility to deliberately NOT know? So it's more of a choice if you want to see all possible outcomes, or if you want to be surprised. A related ability would be the ability to forget and thus be surprised again. Or remember at will, or at need. Strange to think about, but all possible in those contexts.
So I would marry perfect being with perfect action, and that can be to create flaws deliberately to emphasize certain other aspects of creation.
As for the omnipotence & omniscience, what about the possibility to deliberately NOT know? So it's more of a choice if you want to see all possible outcomes, or if you want to be surprised. A related ability would be the ability to forget and thus be surprised again. Or remember at will, or at need. Strange to think about, but all possible in those contexts.
On the previous topic, I would have to assume that, by attempting to define your protagonist as 'perfect,' YOU have already made (or attempted to make) all the choices/constraints/limits regarding that omnipotent protagonist, which is by definition impossible. Therefore it is impossible to define an omnipotent being as 'perfect,' as they will (to steal a well-known phrase) 'reject your reality and substitute hir own.'
It's weird, really. I have no problem at all with the idea that something can be 'without limit,' and can visualize it as such, but at the same time I have a really hard time visualizing finite vastness, such as Graham's Number or the traveling salesman problems. It's like my brain is fine with the idea that some things will just...overflow beyond its ability to calculate, but it can get bogged down trying to understand the vastness of something that has been defined as being vast, as if it is trying to determine exactly how vast.
--Patrick
It's weird, really. I have no problem at all with the idea that something can be 'without limit,' and can visualize it as such, but at the same time I have a really hard time visualizing finite vastness, such as Graham's Number or the traveling salesman problems. It's like my brain is fine with the idea that some things will just...overflow beyond its ability to calculate, but it can get bogged down trying to understand the vastness of something that has been defined as being vast, as if it is trying to determine exactly how vast.
--Patrick
Necronic
Staff member
The difficulty of this subject is the constraints of language.
What I define as perfect is I think different from what others do. Perfection is synonymous with complete, and infinite. However...
I guess my only counter at the moment is that the concepts of cardinality still end with a true and unique infinity, and that this is where the god-head sits.
Lots of interesting comments. I need to think on them. Also, bonus points if anyone can guess what my relgious beliefs are.
What I define as perfect is I think different from what others do. Perfection is synonymous with complete, and infinite. However...
that's an interesting point, and it reminds me of an issue with the mathematical concept of infinity, and how there are different cardinalties/types of infinity, like an infinity of integers vs inf of real numbers (stole that straight from wiki). If there are different possible infinities then there could be different possible perfections, which raises issue with a lot of what else was said.
I guess my only counter at the moment is that the concepts of cardinality still end with a true and unique infinity, and that this is where the god-head sits.
Lots of interesting comments. I need to think on them. Also, bonus points if anyone can guess what my relgious beliefs are.
C
Chazwozel
I'd go along the lines of Zen Buddhism
S
Soliloquy
Ah, I get it now. You're taking a sort of panthiest view, in which the universe and God are the same thing, and if God were to create parts of itself, God must have been imperfect beforehand.
The people who adhere to creationism take a separate view, in which God can create things which are, themselves, not God. The Universe, Angels, etc. are, according to this view, separate from God, but created by God.
As for the questions about choice. . . honestly, the more I think about it, the less I'm certain that I even understand the concept of free will, or the appeal of it.
Your actions are determined by the type of person you are in the circumstances you are in. If they weren't, your actions would be meaningless, and say nothing about you.
Here's a little thought experiment I cooked up: Let's say that time were to completely reverse itself by five minutes, but you don't remember anything that happened during the five minutes that were reversed. Would you do anything differently during those five minutes the second time through?
Honestly, I can't think of a single reason that anyone would.
(that is, unless it has something to do with the randomness of some aspects of quantum mechanics, but I don't think that "random" and "free will" are one and the same)
S
Soliloquy
Well, it's not a bad 5 minutes. I was playing warlight.
Man, it's thought experiments like this that make me glad I procrastinate as often as I do.
E
Element 117
sounds like my day mining
E
Element 117
Cause God is waaaay more awesome than your friends. He's all shiny and stuff.
C
Chibibar
Cause God is waaaay more awesome than your friends. He's all shiny and stuff.[/QUOTE]
depends if you even think about your friend at the time.
I kinda like the OoTS version of heaven (Order of the Stick)
When Roy died and play with his brother and visit his mom and grandfather, he spend 3 month thinking it was only a DAY. So while you are enjoying life in heaven for say........ years, you may think about it depending on your situation
I remember hearing a pastor once defining hell as separation from God. That is, separation from Good, Knowledge, Love, Reason, etc. Now ... the sermon's point was that whether or not we believe in the afterlife, we spend our lives either getting closer/farther away from both heaven and hell. I don't think it entirely ties into this conversation, but still.
RE: Freedom, choice, free will, etc. I'm fairly certain the 'freedom to choose' is a pretty recent definition of free will. In fact, if I recall some of my readings from Descartes, Descartes claimed that the fewer options we have, the freer we are. I think the argument went something like this: if you had to choose between Subway and Quizno's, and you liked both equally, you could spend several minutes (hours, days, months, whatever) deliberating and trying to make a decision. If, though, you knew that at that moment a man was shooting every other customer who walked through the doors of Quizno's, that makes your choice that much easier.
In that way, perhaps a being with omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. is free in ways that we could not even conceive.
RE: Creation/evolution, etc. This is one of those things that has been going on for literally thousands of years. The theory of evolution is only a few hundred years old, and our current understanding might only be aged a few decades, but even as far back as the fourth century C.E., Saint Agustin made the argument against seven days of creation. Of course, his argument was more that, due to the all-powerful nature of God, Creation probably happened instantaneously, rather than over seven days.
Reconciling Christianity and Evolution isn't that difficult. Many rational men and women have done so. I don't know how the seven day creationist guys are getting so much press about it, but it seriously blows their position far out of proportion. Now ... no judgment against the guys who are still stuck in a seven day interpretation, but I feel like they are (a) the minority, and (b) far, far too loud about it.
You know, how about instead asking these questions on a forum you actually go read some stuff people came up with after actually dedicating their lives to questions like those?!
Because it gets really annoying hearing the same questions people have been asking for over 2k years...
Because it gets really annoying hearing the same questions people have been asking for over 2k years...
Or you know He knows the outcome because he exists at the same time in all time, so from His PoV you already made your choice (which still had to come from you)... i'm actually pretty sure there's a quantum theory (hypothesis?) about time working like that too.
Generally I agree, but there's no crime inherent in discussing the matter, is there?
There is the crime of annoying me... i'm working on making it have the death penalty.
Dave
Staff member
If everything came from God then hell is also made of God and there's no way to ever be totally free of Him.
Yes, God is that annoying ex-girlfriend who stalks you and calls at 3 am from your balcony, which is weird because you live on the third floor and she has always claimed that she has a fear of heights. And every time you turn around there she is, acting all happy to see you and not getting it that you broke up three years ago. Then when you try and explain she starts to cry and get mad at the same time. You never know if she's going to harass the new chick you're trying to bang but she's always keying your car or breaking stuff she knows you value.
Man, God's a bitch.
Yes, God is that annoying ex-girlfriend who stalks you and calls at 3 am from your balcony, which is weird because you live on the third floor and she has always claimed that she has a fear of heights. And every time you turn around there she is, acting all happy to see you and not getting it that you broke up three years ago. Then when you try and explain she starts to cry and get mad at the same time. You never know if she's going to harass the new chick you're trying to bang but she's always keying your car or breaking stuff she knows you value.
Man, God's a bitch.
That's kinda the idea... though some denominations believe that hell is being separated from God...
Dude, the new chick is like totally bad for you and her place is way to hot for your constitution.
Necronic
Staff member
I like how you assume that I have never studied religion. Good stuff.
And of course people have been asking the same question for thousands of years. They are inherently anti-intellectual and there is no answer to most of them. People occasionally claim they have an answer to one of them, from the ontological to the theleological arguments, or the design argument or whatever, and in each case these arguments are found to be seriously lacking, because, like I said. Its anti-intellectual.
That doesn't mean that there is no value discussing it, there is. Ant-intellectual issues can never be directly answered, but through discussion you may slowly start to glimpse a piece of it.
But you know, if you have the definitive answer, please, enlighten us.
---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------
Edit: and with regards to the heaven/hell thing, I just don't get it. Unless human empathy is completely stripped, the simple knowledge that other people were in hell would be a piece of hell in and of itself. If the empathy is stripped, and all that matters to us anymore is our closeness to god, then we have lost our humanity. I am a stron believer in the concept of infinite rebirth as it is presented in Buddhism, that we are from moment to moment a wholy different being than we were in the last moment. In the long run this means that the person I am at 50 is a seperate entity than the person I was at 10. But at least there is a thread of continuity between those different states. The requirement of a lack of humanity means to me that the person I am now would be sentenced to oblivion, and some discontinuous modified version of myself would exist in heaven. So, the heaven/hell paradox ultimately requires oblivion of the mortal self. Or that everyone is a sociopath to begin with and has no empathy
C
Chibibar
good question
Here's a way to think of it that I made up on the spot, so YMMV: Do you have empathy for the guilty in prisons? Not the potentially innocent, but the absolutely guilty (by an objective measure). Maybe you do, but many have none. But take it from the perspective of justified punishment/separation. If you were in a "heaven" that was close to God, then God would also presumably give you perfect insight into why said people are sentenced to Hell, and then presumably you'd be as OK with people in Hell as most are with criminals being in jail.
It's an imperfect answer, but it's kind of an answer that doesn't require the annihilation of the self.
- Status