Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: The Context of Godhood

  1. Top | #11
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    To that end, I'm discussing and examining, for the purposes of perhaps putting to rest this expectation that this "prime cause" not be as flawed and mortal as we are, in its own context of normal life.
    Well, the real problem, is how one could possibly really know. Indeed, does "flawed" have any particular meaning with respect to an fundamentally Singular Being? Flawed relative to what norm? It's own context, possibly, but even if we had access to that context (as we surely do not) it might not result in a satisfying answer to the question, as there could be no guarantee that it actually knows or has a coherent response to that question. We are intelligent enough to be conscious of our own limitations, but flawed in our ability to convincingly imagine beyond those limitations.

    Oh, the things I did there. I made some awesome things. Some obscene things. Some things of beauty. And also various weapons against everything and sunder. Eventually they found my alt account where I hid the worst of them and they banned me.
    Wait, you were a griefer? Sorry, we can't be friends...
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,338
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,926
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn
    Like, what I want to know from Angra (perhaps someone comments; I have them on ignore) what obligation I personally have to be omnipotent or omniscient or for that matter good within the context of the universe I created.
    You want to know from me, but you won't read my answer because you have me on ignore? That is weird.

    Anyway, of course you do not have any obligation to be omnipotent or omniscient. You do have (tautologically) a moral obligation not to behave immorally, and I'm inclined to say that that is an obligation to be a good person (though it might be argued it's only an obligation not to be a bad one and that there is a difference).

    Now, obligations aside, if you are not omnipotent or not omniscient, then you are not God, in any of the usual definitions of "God" in philosophy of religion. Sure, you may not care about them and want to talk about something else. That is fine, but then, what do you mean by "God"? Perhaps, you meant that you are God in some colloquial sense of the word? If so, I do not know that there is such sense, but if there is, going by the way people talk about God, it seems the answer is probably still negative, as they would not call you "God", or even a god. But maybe you have linguistic evidence to support the view that you'd be God? If so, I'd like to see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn
    It does not in any way change the fact that the universe was created, that I have control over it.

    In fact, both my omniscience and my omnipotence are aftermarket.

    I'm still unarguably it's creator.
    You're not omnipotent or omniscient. You don't have all knowledge of what happens in your universe, either, nor all power (see Bomb#20's post here). As to whether you are the creator, sure, that is true (though many theists generally would disagree, but they are mistaken in their belief that creation only applies to ex-nihilo things). But how do you go from 'creator' to 'God'?

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,338
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,926
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse
    Even the medieval scholastics whose work Angrya Mainyu flatteringly describes as "nearly all philosophers of religion" in the post above wouldn't have described themselves as discovering anything about God's true nature, but rather discovering what God had revealed about himself in Scripture.
    I wasn't talking about medieval scholastics. I was talking about current academic field known as "philosophy of religion".

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/p...gion/#FielSign

    Today, philosophy of religion is one of the most vibrant areas of philosophy. Articles in philosophy of religion appear in virtually all the main philosophical journals, while some journals (such as the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Religious Studies, Sophia, Faith and Philosophy, and others) are dedicated especially to philosophy of religion.
    That's what I was talking about, because I was assessing whether Jarhyn would be God given how people use the word "God", so I considered how professional philosophers who specialize on philosophy of religion use it, and how other people might use it - though the latter is more difficult to use, since it's not clear there is enough of a shared concept.

  4. Top | #14
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse
    Even the medieval scholastics whose work Angrya Mainyu flatteringly describes as "nearly all philosophers of religion" in the post above wouldn't have described themselves as discovering anything about God's true nature, but rather discovering what God had revealed about himself in Scripture.
    I wasn't talking about medieval scholastics. I was talking about current academic field known as "philosophy of religion".

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/p...gion/#FielSign

    Today, philosophy of religion is one of the most vibrant areas of philosophy. Articles in philosophy of religion appear in virtually all the main philosophical journals, while some journals (such as the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Religious Studies, Sophia, Faith and Philosophy, and others) are dedicated especially to philosophy of religion.
    That's what I was talking about, because I was assessing whether Jarhyn would be God given how people use the word "God", so I considered how professional philosophers who specialize on philosophy of religion use it, and how other people might use it - though the latter is more difficult to use, since it's not clear there is enough of a shared concept.
    They have a tendency to repeat a certain set of arguments.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,898
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,809
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    I wasn't talking about medieval scholastics. I was talking about current academic field known as "philosophy of religion".

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/p...gion/#FielSign


    That's what I was talking about, because I was assessing whether Jarhyn would be God given how people use the word "God", so I considered how professional philosophers who specialize on philosophy of religion use it, and how other people might use it - though the latter is more difficult to use, since it's not clear there is enough of a shared concept.
    They have a tendency to repeat a certain set of arguments.
    Largely because I have a tendency to point at actual, real things and concrete examples for the sake of investigating what the shape of reality can possibly be rather than getting all hung up on what religious shit people have carried forward from the bronze age that is so much wishful thinking.

    The fact remains that I am as I am, and within the context of my world I am the creator. If theists wish to claim that there is a creator, they must accept that the creator can be exactly as you or I, and the implications that has on their claims that the Creator of the universe must be some thing or another. Because I'm a piece of shit, and I still created a universe. It is concrete disproof that God must be good.

  6. Top | #16
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    I wasn't talking about medieval scholastics. I was talking about current academic field known as "philosophy of religion".

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/p...gion/#FielSign


    That's what I was talking about, because I was assessing whether Jarhyn would be God given how people use the word "God", so I considered how professional philosophers who specialize on philosophy of religion use it, and how other people might use it - though the latter is more difficult to use, since it's not clear there is enough of a shared concept.
    They have a tendency to repeat a certain set of arguments.
    Largely because I have a tendency to point at actual, real things and concrete examples for the sake of investigating what the shape of reality can possibly be rather than getting all hung up on what religious shit people have carried forward from the bronze age that is so much wishful thinking.

    The fact remains that I am as I am, and within the context of my world I am the creator. If theists wish to claim that there is a creator, they must accept that the creator can be exactly as you or I, and the implications that has on their claims that the Creator of the universe must be some thing or another. Because I'm a piece of shit, and I still created a universe. It is concrete disproof that God must be good.
    Was referring to the academic set Angra Mainyu referenced. It's a lot of Anselm, for one, the monk from whose writings the whole notion of philosophically defining the "maximally perfect" attributes of God originated. Whenever someone quotes the "three omnis" at you, they may earnestly believe that they are simply alluding to what "everyone knows" is Christian theology. But whether or not they realize it, they are championing a certain line of reasoning that emerged at a certain place and time, among men of a certain social class, more than halfway through the tenure of the existence of the faith. Similarly, Trinitarianism was Roman rather than Medieval development, but it was nevertheless a historically bounded idea and one that never captured the allegiance of the entire church, only a majority. There's a tendency among Continental and British scholars to only see the history of the orthodox Latin church (and then if they are British, the early Potestant Reformation) as valid orthodoxies, and all other philosphies and theologies as extraneous curiosities. But this reflects the language, social class, and most of all geographical location of their upbringing more than it does any serious examination of the global church.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  7. Top | #17
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,898
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,809
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    Largely because I have a tendency to point at actual, real things and concrete examples for the sake of investigating what the shape of reality can possibly be rather than getting all hung up on what religious shit people have carried forward from the bronze age that is so much wishful thinking.

    The fact remains that I am as I am, and within the context of my world I am the creator. If theists wish to claim that there is a creator, they must accept that the creator can be exactly as you or I, and the implications that has on their claims that the Creator of the universe must be some thing or another. Because I'm a piece of shit, and I still created a universe. It is concrete disproof that God must be good.
    Was referring to the academic set Angra Mainyu referenced. It's a lot of Anselm, for one, the monk from whose writings the whole notion of philosophically defining the "maximally perfect" attributes of God originated. Whenever someone quotes the "three omnis" at you, they may earnestly believe that they are simply alluding to what "everyone knows" is Christian theology. But whether or not they realize it, they are championing a certain line of reasoning that emerged at a certain place and time, among men of a certain social class, more than halfway through the tenure of the existence of the faith. Similarly, Trinitarianism was Roman rather than Medieval development, but it was nevertheless a historically bounded idea and one that never captured the allegiance of the entire church, only a majority. There's a tendency among Continental and British scholars to only see the history of the orthodox Latin church (and then if they are British, the early Potestant Reformation) as valid orthodoxies, and all other philosphies and theologies as extraneous curiosities. But this reflects the language, social class, and most of all geographical location of their upbringing more than it does any serious examination of the global church.
    Ah, understood. I'm just frustrated in many respects with trying to find an answer for insufferable religionistas as to why their just-so fantasies about what a creator "must be". I think what I have feels "close" insofar as it concretely disproves many assumptions.

    Interestingly though, it does provide an interesting potential for context insofar as that it could invert the entire passion play: were I to create a universe, it is not the universe's sins that I must accept living and dying within that universe for. Rather, my death would necessarily be an answer, apology, and empathy with the denizens thereof in accepting no less than the fate I damned everyone else in that universe to.

    In short, according to Jesus, deities have an obligation to live and die, as you ought love your neighbor as yourself, and how much can you be said to have loved your neighbor if you expect him to live and die in a world when you won't do the same?

  8. Top | #18
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    Largely because I have a tendency to point at actual, real things and concrete examples for the sake of investigating what the shape of reality can possibly be rather than getting all hung up on what religious shit people have carried forward from the bronze age that is so much wishful thinking.

    The fact remains that I am as I am, and within the context of my world I am the creator. If theists wish to claim that there is a creator, they must accept that the creator can be exactly as you or I, and the implications that has on their claims that the Creator of the universe must be some thing or another. Because I'm a piece of shit, and I still created a universe. It is concrete disproof that God must be good.
    Was referring to the academic set Angra Mainyu referenced. It's a lot of Anselm, for one, the monk from whose writings the whole notion of philosophically defining the "maximally perfect" attributes of God originated. Whenever someone quotes the "three omnis" at you, they may earnestly believe that they are simply alluding to what "everyone knows" is Christian theology. But whether or not they realize it, they are championing a certain line of reasoning that emerged at a certain place and time, among men of a certain social class, more than halfway through the tenure of the existence of the faith. Similarly, Trinitarianism was Roman rather than Medieval development, but it was nevertheless a historically bounded idea and one that never captured the allegiance of the entire church, only a majority. There's a tendency among Continental and British scholars to only see the history of the orthodox Latin church (and then if they are British, the early Potestant Reformation) as valid orthodoxies, and all other philosphies and theologies as extraneous curiosities. But this reflects the language, social class, and most of all geographical location of their upbringing more than it does any serious examination of the global church.
    Ah, understood. I'm just frustrated in many respects with trying to find an answer for insufferable religionistas as to why their just-so fantasies about what a creator "must be". I think what I have feels "close" insofar as it concretely disproves many assumptions.

    Interestingly though, it does provide an interesting potential for context insofar as that it could invert the entire passion play: were I to create a universe, it is not the universe's sins that I must accept living and dying within that universe for. Rather, my death would necessarily be an answer, apology, and empathy with the denizens thereof in accepting no less than the fate I damned everyone else in that universe to.

    In short, according to Jesus, deities have an obligation to live and die, as you ought love your neighbor as yourself, and how much can you be said to have loved your neighbor if you expect him to live and die in a world when you won't do the same?
    Hmm, would you do it, though? I've heard of artists dying for their art, but they're usually depressed about other things when they do it.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  9. Top | #19
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,898
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,809
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    Ah, understood. I'm just frustrated in many respects with trying to find an answer for insufferable religionistas as to why their just-so fantasies about what a creator "must be". I think what I have feels "close" insofar as it concretely disproves many assumptions.

    Interestingly though, it does provide an interesting potential for context insofar as that it could invert the entire passion play: were I to create a universe, it is not the universe's sins that I must accept living and dying within that universe for. Rather, my death would necessarily be an answer, apology, and empathy with the denizens thereof in accepting no less than the fate I damned everyone else in that universe to.

    In short, according to Jesus, deities have an obligation to live and die, as you ought love your neighbor as yourself, and how much can you be said to have loved your neighbor if you expect him to live and die in a world when you won't do the same?
    Hmm, would you do it, though? I've heard of artists dying for their art, but they're usually depressed about other things when they do it.
    Interestingly enough, I'm taking the risk of it happening.

    It was, in fact, the entire reason I spoke the words of creation this time around -- granted I've already died horribly in these worlds I make numerous times. I already set the wheels in motion to present as analogous a version of myself as I may to the world I created. It won't happen strictly in the narrative and physical framework that universe currently exists solely in, but I've also arranged to transform the narrative framework to something a little less computerized.

    To demystify what this means: I'm giving the world to my DM where, while abstractions will remain controlled by the prior framework, all concrete interactions after that point will be simulated via 5e with characters run by an actual human being, all the while playing a self-insert character faithfully. And I only get the one shot at being said self-insert. The worst part of it is that the first being(s) I am going to end up having to answer to is the being(s) that I will have created as an "adventurer", and rode around on, roughshod. I suspect that my treatment will scale with how true to those people I was, as I was being them. At the very least it is consequential insofar as this is going to be the only opportunity I ever really get to be the wizard that I actually am in a roleplay setting. We only get so many tables to play at in our lives, and I suspect this may be the last table I get to play at.

    So to answer your question, I have already chosen to live as the people of my world live. The question becomes then whether they choose that it is also my lot to die.

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,199
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,085
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    ...I have already chosen to live as the people of my world live. The question becomes then whether they choose that it is also my lot to die.
    In the example of Jesus suffering and dying, the worst bit is the suffering. When he was dead, that third of the Godhood laid in the tomb but his mind might have gone to hell (?)... while the other two thirds were still alive...
    BTW what do you think of post #10?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •