Let's Talk About True Sacrifice

reply to post by Cuervo


I'll be dealing with your response shortly.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

Either way, the essential nature of "God" contradicts every law of physics in the known universe.

Well, of course it does. That's why God is considered supernatural (a better term might be "supra natural", to differentiate between his essence and things like ghosts or ESP) -- as the creator of reality, he necessarily exists outside of it -- outside of nature, outside of the material existence and outside of time.

That's a fundamental characteristic of all "creator centric" theologies, how can you not have known that?

reply to post by adjensen

Well, of course it does. That's why God is considered supernatural (a better term might be "supra natural", to differentiate between his essence and things like ghosts or ESP) -- as the creator of reality, he necessarily exists outside of it -- outside of nature, outside of the material existence and outside of time.

No, that's why "God" can be considered the most outlandishly written superhero since before All-Star Superman came out. If you create a reality that cannot sustain your nature, then it logically follows that you cannot enter said reality. Even if you brought a piece of your own reality with you to take shelter in for the duration of the journey, the two realities would be like throwing a universe into a black hole. There's no place for the black hole to be, and there's nowhere for the universe to go.

Basically, what's the point of creating a universe you can't be part of? Either the entire universe is subject to the laws that gave birth to your abilities - which means with the right formula, anyone can be a god - or you aren't as powerful as your acolytes claim. Either way, the story changes. That's what happens to sensational tales. Tangled webs and all that...

You think that we need someone perfect to look up to. I think we need someone imperfect to look up to. Someone who can show us that it's alright to be flawed, that what really matters more than being all-powerful or all-knowing is how to do the best with what you've got. Showing us everything we're not is pointless. Showing us everything we can be in this life...that's something worth doing. Not being in debt to anything, not having to measure up to anything...just doing the best with what we have and are. Failing is okay. Giving up is not.

Nothing is perfect. But perfection doesn't guarantee happiness. It only guarantees simplicity. And simple is not always better.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Basically, what's the point of creating a universe you can't be part of?

Different religions have different answers to that question, but, ultimately, who cares?

Maybe we're an experiment. Maybe we're intentionally created so that he has someone to love. Maybe we're accidents of evolution. Maybe all of this was created so that you and I could argue endlessly. In the end, it doesn't matter, because here we are.

God has the characteristics that are commensurate with the creator of reality -- eternal, external to reality, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so forth. Whether those are fictional characteristics that were assigned by some unknown genius in the dim and distant past who understood what would be required to create reality, or they are factual characteristics that were revealed in some manner, we have no way of knowing, at least not in this reality.

But to say that the creator and the creation must share all characteristics is irrational. See the pie argument above.

reply to post by adjensen

Different religions have different answers to that question, but, ultimately, who cares?

I care. It might solve the mystery of why we're taking the worst possible tact in approaching our emotional future.

Maybe we're an experiment. Maybe we're intentionally created so that he has someone to love. Maybe we're accidents of evolution. Maybe all of this was created so that you and I could argue endlessly. In the end, it doesn't matter, because here we are.

Certain approaches leave certain trademarks in our emotional strategies.

God has the characteristics that are commensurate with the creator of reality -- eternal, external to reality, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so forth. Whether those are fictional characteristics that were assigned by some unknown genius in the dim and distant past who understood what would be required to create reality, or they are factual characteristics that were revealed in some manner, we have no way of knowing, at least not in this reality.

"God" sounds like he was developed by someone with a very archaic understand of power and reality. He's a trumped-up Shazam. "By the power of Jesus!" POOF! Instant god.

But to say that the creator and the creation must share all characteristics is irrational. See the pie argument above.

Saying that a benevolent all-powerful deity refuses to take his most evil creation in hand unless we surrender our souls is irrational. Talk to a licensed psychologist for details.

And we share a lot more in common with pie than you seem to think, molecularly speaking. The pie responds to the exact same physics and stimuli we do, aside from the elemental discrepancies that will obviously produce different responses to, say, electrocution or light. Drop a pie and a human from the top of a tower. They both go splat. Set them on fire. They both burn. Soak them in water. Obviously, pastry reacts to water a little more dramatically than flesh does, but the principle is the same. Or you can throw them both in the arctic. Both will freeze.

You apparently haven't thought too deeply about the matter.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
"God" sounds like he was developed by someone with a very archaic understand of power and reality. He's a trumped-up Shazam. "By the power of Jesus!" POOF! Instant god.

Well, with your limited knowledge of the Abrahamic religions, it's easy to see how you'd come to that conclusion, but if you compare other deities of the time (the Roman or Norse gods, for example,) the Judaic-Christian God differs in that the others are, effectively, aggrandized men, while he is something else entirely.

And we share a lot more in common with pie than you seem to think, molecularly speaking.

You're just not getting it -- you're claiming that the creator and creation must share all characteristics in common, I am saying that they do not, as the pieman and pie have clearly distinctive characteristics.

reply to post by adjensen

Well, with your limited knowledge of the Abrahamic religions, it's easy to see how you'd come to that conclusion, but if you compare other deities of the time (the Roman or Norse gods, for example,) the Judaic-Christian God differs in that the others are, effectively, aggrandized men, while he is something else entirely.

He certainly displays a fiery temper, and a voracious desire to be worshipped by the inferior and unworthy mortals of this earth.

You're just not getting it -- you're claiming that the creator and creation must share all characteristics in common, I am saying that they do not, as the pieman and pie have clearly distinctive characteristics.

I am saying that the physics of one must apply to the other as well, for they both exist within the same reality, are composed of the same elements, and are subject to the same nuclear laws.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

Either way, the essential nature of "God" contradicts every law of physics in the known universe. Not to mention that apparently his acolytes are loathe to give him up, even if it means the end of pain and suffering.

hey AI,
let me remind you that its a hypothetical and ridiculous question in OP.

Sufferings are not really going to end as you have started assuming.

Its like me asking,
"will all atheists agree to die to save the Universe?"
forget all,
will you die if i say that it will bring peace on the earth without asking me how?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

Well, with your limited knowledge of the Abrahamic religions, it's easy to see how you'd come to that conclusion, but if you compare other deities of the time (the Roman or Norse gods, for example,) the Judaic-Christian God differs in that the others are, effectively, aggrandized men, while he is something else entirely.

He certainly displays a fiery temper, and a voracious desire to be worshipped by the inferior and unworthy mortals of this earth.

If you are a fundamentalist who personifies everything, yeah, I suppose so.

However I, like most Christians, am not a fundamentalist who personifies everything, so your description doesn't really mean anything.

I am saying that the physics of one must apply to the other as well, for they both exist within the same reality, are composed of the same elements, and are subject to the same nuclear laws.

For the, what, third time... God and man do not exist within the same reality, they are not composed of the same elements, and are not subject to the same physical laws. I am not aware of anyone, apart from kooks, who claims that they do.

God exists outside of reality, and he is not a natural thing. Your argument falls on its face because you either didn't know that, you didn't understand what that means, or you intentionally ignored it to try and make a point.

reply to post by adjensen


If "God" cannot lose, then how has he proven that he is worthy? When you cannot fail, how do you know what anything is worth to you? The less challenge there is, the less triumph. And the less you lose, the less you have proven. If you are invincible, then you are not a hero. You are a weapon. To truly be an inspiration, you must be able to fail. Otherwise, there is no risk. There is no challenge. There is no triumph.

"God", if anything, is a weapon. And weapons were never meant to be sentient.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Once again, you are applying characteristics to God that you feel make a point but are either irrelevant or wrong. You need to get this "comic book superhero god" thing out of your head. God is incomprehensible, he is not what you make him and he is not the sum of attributes that you apply to a man and think him God.

reply to post by adjensen

Once again, you are applying characteristics to God that you feel make a point but are either irrelevant or wrong. You need to get this "comic book superhero god" thing out of your head. God is incomprehensible, he is not what you make him and he is not the sum of attributes that you apply to a man and think him God.

He's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I can't imagine anything closer to a real-life Marvel superbeing. If it sounds to you like a comic book superhero, well...I'm not the one who invented him, am I? Either he's all-powerful or he isn't. I'm only relaying the summarized version as compiled from all the rumors. And believe it or not, those rumors are everywhere. It's thousands of people saying exactly what I'm saying. They just haven't come to the same conclusions because a nonexistent god just isn't as useful to their emotional states.

If "God" is incomprehensible, then you don't possess the understanding to tell me I am wrong. For all you know, I might be smashing the nail on the head. Although this incomprehensible nature might simply be another symptom of what I have already stated - "God" is a paradox. He cannot exist within this reality because this reality doesn't produce invulnerable entities. If he exists at all, it's not here. The universe couldn't compute such a nature because it breaks every law of physics.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

He's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I can't imagine anything closer to a real-life Marvel superbeing.

Really? Which comic book hero has those attributes? And don't forget eternal (not merely immortal,) as well as existing outside of reality, and being the creator of reality.

And you still haven't explained why you think that the creator must share all the characteristics of the creation. How many times do I have to ask that before you stop ducking it?

reply to post by adjensen

Really? Which comic book hero has those attributes? And don't forget eternal (not merely immortal,) as well as existing outside of reality, and being the creator of reality.

It's beside the point. Nothing can exist outside of reality without becoming unreal. Outside means apart from, so anything outside of reality is not real. Thanks for clarifying that, though.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Thanks for ignoring the direct question again, lol. You're nothing if not consistent.

As for him not coming down and issuing you a direct apology for the state of reality, you don't seem to understand the concept of responsibility. If I bake a pie, and you take it and throw it in... oh, I don't know... Charles1952's face, am I responsible? Should I go apologize to Charles for having made the pie?

reply to post by adjensen

Thanks for ignoring the direct question again, lol. You're nothing if not consistent.

I don't have an answer to your direct question. You asked for specifics when I only intended to use generalities. Your deity REMINDS me of a Marvel or DC comic hero. Is that better?

As for him not coming down and issuing you a direct apology for the state of reality, you don't seem to understand the concept of responsibility. If I bake a pie, and you take it and throw it in... oh, I don't know... Charles1952's face, am I responsible? Should I go apologize to Charles for having made the pie?

Are you omniscient? Are you omnipotent? Are you omnipresent? If you answered yes to any of these, then yes. By the way, it always amuses me when people use earthly analogies, as though they've conveniently forgotten than the god they are attempting to represent using said analogy is bound by the same variables as the average human being. Remember - knowing something will happen, having the full ability to prevent it, yet not doing so, makes you just as guilty as the perpetrator. Either "God" is all-powerful and as guilty as every sinner he designed and created...or he isn't all-powerful, just exceptionally gifted.

"I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being —forgive me —rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger." - Albus Dumbledore

If you took everything people claim "God" to be, and used it to write up a character profile, the corresponding character would be...well, nothing. He would be everywhere, and so he would have no individual form. He would know everything, and so he would have no individual mind. I don't think you realize how childish to modern envisionment of "God" really is. As though you want to give him all the super powers in the world so he cannot lose. Ever.

It's as though you don't appreciate the ability to fail. And that, in itself, disappoints me. That so many people have failed to understand the value of being vulnerable. When there is no risk, there is no prize. According to most Christians, "God" is playing a game he has already lost. But he can't stop playing, or he will die.

Unless, of course...the story is wrong.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

Thanks for ignoring the direct question again, lol. You're nothing if not consistent.

I don't have an answer to your direct question. You asked for specifics when I only intended to use generalities. Your deity REMINDS me of a Marvel or DC comic hero. Is that better?

That wasn't what I asked you, which was this:

And you still haven't explained why you think that the creator must share all the characteristics of the creation.

reply to post by adjensen

And you still haven't explained why you think that the creator must share all the characteristics of the creation.

You can't create what you don't know. All of our creations have come from what we know of the world. From something we have experienced.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You can't create what you don't know. All of our creations have come from what we know of the world. From something we have experienced.

But if he's omniscient, then what doesn't he know? Does he have to be mortal to understand the concept? Do you have to be in China to grasp that there is such a place as China?

reply to post by adjensen

But if he's omniscient, then what doesn't he know?

What does omniscient mean? All of existence available with a thought? Or all of existence simultaneously happening inside of your head? You wouldn't know. You're not omniscient.

Does he have to be mortal to understand the concept? Do you have to be in China to grasp that there is such a place as China?

Could you recreate all of China from what you've seen?

What do you even know about omniscience or omnipotence? Do you just try not to think about it? I push it as far as I can possibly imagine, trying to figure out an answer that makes sense.