What do you do when you realize you are God?
A Question of Suggestion; Mind Digestion.
- Thread starter latch
- Start date
Pin
"Magnificent Bastard" / Ren's Counterpart
- Jun 26, 2017
- 12,749
- 50,519
- 3,276
- MBTI
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 3w4, 3-8-7
"You'd eventually have to introduce a button labelled 'Surprise'."
God is omniscient and timeless. From these two attributes it follows that it's impossible for him to "realise" that he is God at a particular point in time.
Therefore, I could only ever realise that I am something less than God.
What I would do upon this realisation is weep about not being the real God, and vent my frustration by using my still fairly awesome powers against a legion of innocents. I'm kidding.
*flails his arms and runs as fast as he can*
Solid argument Ren. :thumbsup:
Actually, you should be real happy that you're not God, as God's traditional attributes are logically inconsistent and therefore impossible. I assume you prefer existence over non-existence, yes? :lol:
Thanks!
I wonder if I should favor existence as Reason is about to genocide me. Maybe non-existence would protect me from him, though I guess this would come with its own problems. May I ask in what way God's traditional attributes are logically inconsistent and therefore impossible? Not contradicting, just legitimately curious!Just between us, Reason: I was Palpatine before it was cool.
Sorry Ren, I don't have the mental energy to write a freaking essay right now. Have been doing too much research and too much creative writing.
Have been doing too much research and too much creative writing.
Besides all the arguments made, I'm going to assume (for the sake of the argument) that the realisation of Godness would come with the manifestation of Godness.
First thought: GTFO, it's too much responsibility. :backaway:
But then I'd just deal with it the best way I can: impose my vision of a brighter future on the world without infringeing the right of free will.
Thus, the real question would be: if you bore these values, would you even dare to change all that much? What would you be if you did change something, and then another, and another thing, just to steer your flock in the right direction? Wouldn't they fear you for your seeming limitlessness, rather than enjoying the life you gave them? Would they rebel, seeing tyranny and oppression, or would they worship you? What would happen to free will if you revealed your existence to the world?
First thought: GTFO, it's too much responsibility. :backaway:
But then I'd just deal with it the best way I can: impose my vision of a brighter future on the world without infringeing the right of free will.
Thus, the real question would be: if you bore these values, would you even dare to change all that much? What would you be if you did change something, and then another, and another thing, just to steer your flock in the right direction? Wouldn't they fear you for your seeming limitlessness, rather than enjoying the life you gave them? Would they rebel, seeing tyranny and oppression, or would they worship you? What would happen to free will if you revealed your existence to the world?
I agree that free will is the essential question here. But maybe there are categories of change that would be acceptable? I currently have three in mind.
The first is changes that do not impact free will. How about eradicating infant mortality? This may even be seen as enabling the infant's (later) free will.
The second is changes that reduce a person's free will so that the person does not in turn reduce the free will of others (a kind of consequentialist argument). Making murder impossible, for instance.
The third is changes that would arguably enhance free will. I'm thinking of enhancing human beings' capacity for rational judgement.
Sorry Ren, I don't have the mental energy to write a freaking essay right now.
No problem Jo, another time
There's no rush!
Last edited:
Death is a part of life, don't you think? Infant mortality is a form of natural selection. You forget, those are bodies which are not equipped to survive, no matter if later on they develop it, the survival instinct should be there from the start (as an instinct). If you take natural selection out of the equation, overpopulation ensues. We already see this.
But you are still reducing free will, even if you mean well. Murder is an element of free will. What happens if nobody dies?
So you mean that we should, again, interfere with natural developments just to make people smarter? Isn't it the person's choice to decide over what they learn? Also, wouldn't you interfere with the natural course of evolution, favouring humans over other beings? Who are you to choose one species over another?
Very funny. As God you have made all beings and let them evolve naturally by endowing them with free will. It would be taking this certainty away to suddenly decide to change something.
The idea comes from these verses:
Philippians 2:6-7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
and the movies 'The Nines' and 'Mr. Nobody'
If you're not familier to any of those three things then the idea is foreign but your answer is still really good.
Step 1: Check you've taken your tablets. If not, relax, you're having an ordinary delusion - just take the pills and enjoy till they cut in.
Step 2: Try doing a miracle or two. Did that work? If not, go back to Step 1 and increase the dose, perhaps stick your head in a bucket of water as well.
Step 3: You really are God. You have several options:
- Blush with shame, trash the lot, go to plan B and start over
- Get pissed off and chuck the lot into hell
- Jerk the humans about, lol with thunderous voice, scare the wits out of them, have a ball
- Bugger off quick and start another project a long way off
- Get stuck in and try and help sort out the mess - crucifixion, resurrection etc
Maybe I (as God) could make those bodies equipped to survive and create special spaces to mitigate for the risk of overpopulation. I don't know, I'm just cerebrating possibilities. These possibilities are technically unlimited since I am omnipotent. I could technically and systematically mitigate for any potential disruption that may arise out of changing one cog in the system.
Well, people would continue to die, except not by murder. I could also make it so that nobody ever dies in car accidents anymore. Do you think this may bring about major disruptions in the system?
I wouldn't say smarter or more inclined to follow a particular educational route, but rather: endowed with more clear-sightedness when making a judgement upon a given situation in order to make a choice/ set of choices. But I could also make humans more respectful of non-human species. I could make them more ethical (though I agree that we'd have to define in what way), more altruistic, etc.
Of course I would in a certain sense "mess with the system as it is". It's true that, given the realisation that I am an omnipotent deity, I could also decide to do nothing, and leave things as they are. But why not consider "messing with the system" if it can improve the condition of beings and if the right checks and balances can be devised? Why not turn our world into something close to a Utopia that still preserves free will? Do you think this would inevitably imply changing the very essence of who we are as beings, making the whole undertaking of "improving the condition of beings" meaningless? Or do you think some changes can be made that would not result in essential change?
It's an interesting debate.
I should add that, God being perfect, he shouldn't have to act in any way to change anything. This would only result in an admission that he was not so perfect after all. But we have already established that the God of the OP cannot be quite perfect. So maybe that imperfect God could opt to change things without thereby contradicting its own nature.