The reason for this is quite simple: something like that contradicts its own existence. For a being to be Utterly Perfect, then, as I said before, it must be perfect from every angle, yet that just can't happen. At least, not in our reality, or anywhere near it. (Were God is said to be, at least to my knowledge.)
Why does it contradict its own existence? That doesn't make sense to me, could you elaborate?
Sorry that this took a while to respond to. I've been short on time recently. As I said in my original post, this may just be me being insane, but the reason I think It contradicts Its own existence is because for something to be Utterly Perfect It also has to not exist. It cannot think but it must think all, it cannot feel but it must feel all. It may just be due to my opinion of what it means to be 'perfect'. Regardless, I do believe it is impossible to be objectively perfect.
Awesome post by bucket in here. I'll be taking out all the parts and responding to them but if I miss anything please notify me. I don't want to be accused of ignoring things because I can't respond to them. >_>
[
the moment you put any entity that is Omnipotent and Perfect in Every Single Way Because It's So Awesome Like That the entire concept just becomes laughable.
something like that contradicts its own existence. For a being to be Utterly Perfect, then, as I said before, it must be perfect from every angle, yet that just can't happen.
There's a simple way to reconcile the point you bring up. You even (indirectly) point it out yourself:
I hold that any entity with a biological gender/sex is, by nature, imperfect.
Unless It can swap between them at will, in which case... Still kinda imperfect
What if instead of swapping between them, it is both?
Let's just assume there's one, utterly perfect, totally omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent(?)
"Omniscient."
All knowing.
"Omnipotent"
All powerful.
"Omnipresent"
...present everywhere? What would be "present everywhere?"
Think of an ocean wave. You look at it, it's a single wave. It interacts with other waves as a single entity. Yet it is composed of trillions of trillions of water molecules. Look at your brain. It also behaves as a single entity, but it composed of trillions of cells. Look at your body. Composed of dozens of distinct organs and tissues, bones and fluids. And yet it too behaves as a single entity. Look at "you." An entity composed of a body, thoughts, emotions...things both physical and not physical. Yet these disparate things nevertheless act in concert as a singular whole entity.
Omnipresent
What is, by definition, present everywhere?
"Everything."
What if everything behaves as a collective, whole, singular entity composed of absolutely All That Is. Would that entity possess...
"Omniscience?"
Well, yes. Of course. It would literally be aware of everything because "all awareness" and "all things" would both be a part of it. Your awareness of these words on a screen. My awareness of the sensation of my clothes pressed against my body. The subtle vibrations of every grain of sand on every planet in the universe slowly grinding up against each other. "All" part of "All."
Would that entity possess..
"Omnipotence?"
Well, yes. Of course. All power that exists would be definition by part of it. In fact, this is a more literal interpretation of the word. "Omni" means "all." All potency. All potential. All power. And...
"Omnipresense."
Again, by definition. We're talking about everything, everywhere. Of course "the collective of everything everywhere" is "everywhere." And given what we know of the behavior of complex systems, even systems that we would intuitively describe as not intelligent tend to behave intelligently. Neural networks, for example. Ecosystems.
What more complicated system is there in the universe than the sum total of All That Is?
This also nicely reconciles the problem of evil. Why would a just god allow evil to exist? Because god is the evil. And the justice. And your arbitrary moralistic sensibilities that perceive senseless genocide as evil, but the imprisonment and murder of cows and chickens and corn and grass as good. All things. Omnipresence. Everywhere. Cows included. Grass included. The knife used as a murder weapon included. You, included.
Thou art God
Namaste
perfect
Perfect
"1) having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."
Any and all desireble elements, qualities and characteristics would be part of the collective that is All That Is.
"2) absolute; complete"
Yes.
[the moment you put any entity that is Omnipotent and Perfect in Every Single Way Because It's So Awesome Like That the entire concept just becomes laughable.
something like that contradicts its own existence. For a being to be Utterly Perfect, then, as I said before, it must be perfect from every angle, yet that just can't happen.
There's a simple way to reconcile the point you bring up. You even (indirectly) point it out yourself:
I hold that any entity with a biological gender/sex is, by nature, imperfect.
Unless It can swap between them at will, in which case... Still kinda imperfect
What if instead of swapping between them, it is both?
Unfortunately it's not that simple (if only it was. T_T)
If it's both then it isn't either or none. If it's none then it isn't both or either. If it's one then it isn't the other, or none, or both. To be perfect It must be all, none, both, one, everything else imaginable, unimaginable, possible, impossible and all things between. This counts for everything, by the way. Including Its own perfection.
Quote
Let's just assume there's one, utterly perfect, totally omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent(?)
"Omniscient."
All knowing.
"Omnipotent"
All powerful.
"Omnipresent"
...present everywhere? What would be "present everywhere?"
Think of an ocean wave. You look at it, it's a single wave. It interacts with other waves as a single entity. Yet it is composed of trillions of trillions of water molecules. Look at your brain. It also behaves as a single entity, but it composed of trillions of cells. Look at your body. Composed of dozens of distinct organs and tissues, bones and fluids. And yet it too behaves as a single entity. Look at "you." An entity composed of a body, thoughts, emotions...things both physical and not physical. Yet these disparate things nevertheless act in concert as a singular whole entity.
Omnipresent
What is, by definition, present everywhere?
"Everything."
What if everything behaves as a collective, whole, singular entity composed of absolutely All That Is. Would that entity possess...
"Omniscience?"
Well, yes. Of course. It would literally be aware of everything because "all awareness" and "all things" would both be a part of it. Your awareness of these words on a screen. My awareness of the sensation of my clothes pressed against my body. The subtle vibrations of every grain of sand on every planet in the universe slowly grinding up against each other. "All" part of "All."
Would that entity possess..
"Omnipotence?"
Well, yes. Of course. All power that exists would be definition by part of it. In fact, this is a more literal interpretation of the word. "Omni" means "all." All potency. All potential. All power. And...
"Omnipresense."
Again, by definition. We're talking about everything, everywhere. Of course "the collective of everything everywhere" is "everywhere." And given what we know of the behavior of complex systems, even systems that we would intuitively describe as not intelligent tend to behave intelligently. Neural networks, for example. Ecosystems.
What more complicated system is there in the universe than the sum total of All That Is?
This also nicely reconciles the problem of evil. Why would a just god allow evil to exist? Because god is the evil. And the justice. And your arbitrary moralistic sensibilities that perceive senseless genocide as evil, but the imprisonment and murder of cows and chickens and corn and grass as good. All things. Omnipresence. Everywhere. Cows included. Grass included. The knife used as a murder weapon included. You, included.
Thou art God
Namaste
Quote
perfect
Perfect
"1) having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."
Any and all desireble elements, qualities and characteristics would be part of the collective that is All That Is.
"2) absolute; complete"
Yes.
Yep, I can get behind the idea (thought not necessarily the belief) of a 'God' like that, however, there are still a few problems.
"1) having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."
Any and all desirable elements, qualities and characteristics would be part of the collective that is All That Is.
Actually, no. Simply because All That Is isn't actually everything. It doesn't include All That Is Not, or All That Could Be, or All That Will Not Be, or All That May Be (can you see where I'm going with this). Unless you're suggesting 'God' is the collection of all possible and impossible states of existence or thought at every point in time, before time, and after time, in this universe, in every other universe (that may or may not be), outside the collective universes and into the void of Absolute Nothingness. In which case, you
may hold that 'God" is an entity (if indeed It exists) beyond human comprehension. In which case (if that is the case) I totally agree! Actually, here's a quote (of myself) talking to a friend on Skype (quite a long time ago).
"God" is an entity beyond Humans. Its motives cannot be discerned, its thoughts cannot be inferred, its existence cannot be comprehended and it is somewhat foolish to even try.
I'm still unsure if that's correct, but for me to actually be sure is technically impossible.
Anyway, quote number two!
"2) absolute; complete"
Yes.
Nope. Because, All That Is isn't actually complete. It's more like... Sorta complete (maybe?).
Simply because it doesn't include all those things I said above (All That Isn't, All That Was etc.) and more, it cannot be said to be complete. Unless we're specifically saying all things that are, in which case it is 'complete' but it isn't 'absolute' (and is also kind of like a '1=1' situation, we're simply saying something is itself). Unfortunately it needs to be both. Something that is only half isn't complete.
Quote number three!
"Omnipotence?"
Well, yes. Of course. All power that exists would be definition by part of it. In fact, this is a more literal interpretation of the word. "Omni" means "all." All potency. All potential. All power. And...
Yep, no qualms here. However, it's different to the normal kind of "Omnipotence" ascribed to a 'God' (that is, being capable of literally everything.)
Essentially, if we focused all the power and potential of All That Is into a single point, there would still be things that It wouldn't be capable of. Hence, imperfect. (As I said before though, once we throw the whole 'Totally Perfect In Every Way' deal out of the picture, I'm very accepting of the possibility of 'God'.)
Quote number four!
This also nicely reconciles the problem of evil. Why would a just god allow evil to exist? Because god is the evil. And the justice. And your arbitrary moralistic sensibilities that perceive senseless genocide as evil, but the imprisonment and murder of cows and chickens and corn and grass as good. All things. Omnipresence. Everywhere. Cows included. Grass included. The knife used as a murder weapon included. You, included.
Thou art God
Namaste
Personally I prefer The Egg.
Hey hey hey, who said I thought senseless genocide was evil? It's senseless, yes. Objectively a bad thing? No. That's impossible. 'Bad' is a human concept.
I'm being half-joking here.
Anyway, more seriously: Yes, I'm also quite open to this interpretation of God, however in this sense God with be less of an entity and more of a system. I am a system, but I am also an entity that can interact with things outside of my system (such as you, and this keyboard I'm typing on). Going with the interpretation that God Is Everything, It isn't an entity because It cannot interact. It simply is, in which case we're talking about God less as a figure such as that depicted in various religions and more so just a word used to describe something or give compression to information that would otherwise be to inefficient to convey. Sort of like how 'Government' or 'Factory' is used.
Anyway, that's me done for now. I know I haven't responded to anything but if I haven't responded and it doesn't seem to contradict my intent I'm probably amicable to the notion. If you want my input on anything specific, please just ask.
QOTD: Where do you believe 'God' came from? Was It made or came from some other place, similar to the 'It's turtles all the way down' conundrum, or did It simply spontaneously spring into existence (or was It already there)?
I think SD's already kind of answered this, so you don't have to if you don't want to (SD that is, not you, erstwhile viewer).
*Edit* Oh, I just remembered! This is directed @bucket, does Lytherus or IF mean anything to you?
Poll
Author
Topic: Religion Questions Thread (Read 57520 times)