God Destroyed Himself?

Shadow Wolf · Apr 27, 2016

I hate to say it, but the introduction is really turning me off. But, then again, I'm use to philosophers who don't give damn if you get pissed off and offended at what you read. Your personal feelings are nothing and mean nothing. You picked up the book, you wanted to read it, you'll take what you get. And a bunch of old guys verbally slugging it out between each other until the day they died.

Shadow Wolf · Apr 27, 2016

I do have to disagree with the bit about probability, because no matter how many coin tosses you have, the probability of the next coin toss being heads (or tails) is 1/2. It doesn't matter if it's the first toss or the millionth toss, it will still and always be 1/2. Probability is an important thing to understand when trying to understand our world, but the author is fundamentally wrong when he writes "as the number of tosses increases..." And of course we know do know why, and the answer is because probability, but not because probability is inexplicable. If I roll a d20, any given side has a 1/20 chance of showing, odd numbers have a 1/2 chance of showing, anything ending with 3 has a 1/10 chance of showing. This is mathematically explainable.
And in the next chapter his bit about DNA and probability saying "anything is possible" doesn't belong, because it sounds awfully similar an anti-evolution theist babbling on about cats giving birth to frogs.
I did like the bit about the few true believers though, even if the words and concepts behind it were a stretch. And then the road maps made me groan, because so very often religion doesn't work. It doesn't ensure such things, and begs for the old Nordic-countries horse to be beaten some more, versus places like the relatively more religious America and the far more religious Middle East, and then also places like Japan where the term "religion" does not apply as it's typically understood from the position of a Westerner, or even Middle-Easterner who understands religion as something organized and dogmatic, and very few people there consider themselves to be religious.
I could keep going on (I read about half the book), but to me his case is very unconvincing. I find that Bill Hicks made a better case when he said "All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves." It has the overlap with one consciousness, but Bill's statement gives an answer to the questions raised about magnetics and gravity. Though I could pick apart many more details (such as how lust is somehow supposed to be motivated by weakness), but assuming the position that god is omnipotent, it is interesting to think maybe he did get bored and blew himself up because he had nothing better to do. However, I definitely would have written something much better, something more accurate, and a much more concise thought experiment to do it with. But I wouldn't, because rather than assume this one higher power god, I would much rather ask "what if god has a god?"

idav · Apr 27, 2016

Shadow Wolf said:
This I must read. Is it specifically the God's Debris section, or the entire pdf (which I might get around to sooner rather than later since this Scott Adams is a new name to me)?

That is throughout the story once they get into gods characteristics. I didn't find a specific section but tid bits here and there when I was going through it again.

Scott Adams does the Dilbert comics.

idav · Apr 27, 2016

Shadow Wolf said:
I do have to disagree with the bit about probability, because no matter how many coin tosses you have, the probability of the next coin toss being heads (or tails) is 1/2. It doesn't matter if it's the first toss or the millionth toss, it will still and always be 1/2. Probability is an important thing to understand when trying to understand our world, but the author is fundamentally wrong when he writes "as the number of tosses increases..." And of course we know do know why, and the answer is because probability, but not because probability is inexplicable. If I roll a d20, any given side has a 1/20 chance of showing, odd numbers have a 1/2 chance of showing, anything ending with 3 has a 1/10 chance of showing. This is mathematically explainable.
And in the next chapter his bit about DNA and probability saying "anything is possible" doesn't belong, because it sounds awfully similar an anti-evolution theist babbling on about cats giving birth to frogs.
I did like the bit about the few true believers though, even if the words and concepts behind it were a stretch. And then the road maps made me groan, because so very often religion doesn't work. It doesn't ensure such things, and begs for the old Nordic-countries horse to be beaten some more, versus places like the relatively more religious America and the far more religious Middle East, and then also places like Japan where the term "religion" does not apply as it's typically understood from the position of a Westerner, or even Middle-Easterner who understands religion as something organized and dogmatic, and very few people there consider themselves to be religious.
I could keep going on (I read about half the book), but to me his case is very unconvincing. I find that Bill Hicks made a better case when he said "All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves." It has the overlap with one consciousness, but Bill's statement gives an answer to the questions raised about magnetics and gravity. Though I could pick apart many more details (such as how lust is somehow supposed to be motivated by weakness), but assuming the position that god is omnipotent, it is interesting to think maybe he did get bored and blew himself up because he had nothing better to do. However, I definitely would have written something much better, something more accurate, and a much more concise thought experiment to do it with. But I wouldn't, because rather than assume this one higher power god, I would much rather ask "what if god has a god?"

However the probabilities come from quantum mechanics, it isn't just about a coin toss and it goes into that aspect giving god free will.

I guess it didn't get too into qm but it mentions in the section of physics of God dust, that matter pops in and out of existence.

I am a Bill Hicks fan too and that quote has rang true.

I think your right that it could be done better but is very good for its time. We have come a long way in science since the thought experiment, even since 2001.

whirlingmerc · Jun 11, 2016

Humans are made of the lowly dust but made to reflect and reflect on the glory of God, even being tarnished fallen reflectors of glory they are made in God's image
other creations are not

As far as did God die? yes and no. Jesus as God took on an additional nature, an unfallen human nature THe divine nature and human nature welded together as it were in one person
and in his humaness died
and in his divine nature raised himself

idav · Jun 11, 2016

whirlingmerc said:
Humans are made of the lowly dust but made to reflect and reflect on the glory of God, even being tarnished fallen reflectors of glory they are made in God's image
other creations are not

This is a fascinating take but I don't really know what distinguishes humans that only we have the connection with god.
In Matthew I take it as a rhetorical question, because in context, we are both fed from god meaning god isn't seeing us as more valuable, thats coming from our ego.

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

Matthew 6:26

whirlingmerc · Jun 25, 2016

Jesus was divine but took on an additional nature, a human nature
In his humanity he died
In his divine nature which did not die he could raise himself
see the gospel of John
"tear down this body and in 3 days I will raise it again'

John 2:

13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple,[c] and will you raise it up in three days?”21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

idav · Jun 25, 2016

whirlingmerc said:
Jesus was divine but took on an additional nature, a human nature
In his humanity he died
In his divine nature which did not die he could raise himself
see the gospel of John
"tear down this body and in 3 days I will raise it again'

So god destroyed himself and put himself back together.

I am talking more of God being the very power that is the universe.

BTW I think I've seen you post the video in other places.

Tumah · Jun 25, 2016

I got up to the part where he begins explaining the outcome of god's destroying himself. The god's debris chapter.
Its cute. But I think the basis of the book is the most generic possible understanding of a god out there. I think only someone who hasn't really put any thought into G-d would find it compelling. I think the author contradicts himself, by ascertaining that the god has no human emotion but then goes on to apply human motivation and thought to what he suggests god would want to do.

idav · Jun 26, 2016

Tumah said:
I think the author contradicts himself, by ascertaining that the god has no human emotion but then goes on to apply human motivation and thought to what he suggests god would want to do.

In the scenario that god destroyed himself, the idea is that humans are the consciousness emerging from this broken state. The universe/god observing itself would be due to human awareness.

Tumah · Jun 26, 2016

idav said:
In the scenario that god destroyed himself, the idea is that humans are the consciousness emerging from this broken state. The universe/god observing itself would be due to human awareness.

I was referring to the possibility that G-d would be motivated to do anything at all. At one point the conclusion is reached that human emotion is incomparable to anything G-d might experience.

“So, isn’t it arrogant to think that the love generated by our little brains is the same thing that an omnipotent being experiences? If you were omnipotent, why would you limit yourself to something that could be reproduced by a little clump of neurons?”
I shifted my opinion to better defend it. “We must feel something similar to God’s type of love, but not the same way God feels it.”
“What does it mean to feel something similar to the way God feels? Is that like saying a pebble is similar to the sun because both are round?” he responded.
“Okay, I can accept the idea that God doesn’t have a personality exactly like people. Maybe we just assume God has a personality because it’s easier to talk about it that way...

And then the contradiction:

“Does it make sense to think of God as wanting anything? A God would have no emotions, no fears, no desires, no curiosity, no hunger. Those are human shortcomings, not something that would be found in an omnipotent God. What then would motivate God?”

Why is it assumed that G-d does experience human motivation, but not human emotions, fears, desires, curiosity or hunger?

MD · Jun 26, 2016

KABOOM!!

idav · Jun 26, 2016

Tumah said:
Why is it assumed that G-d does experience human motivation, but not human emotions, fears, desires, curiosity or hunger?

Further into it does get into the very idea that god wouldn't feel, that there would be nothing left for an omnipotent god to do, and not based on an emotional need.

Tumah · Jun 26, 2016

idav said:
Further into it does get into the very idea that god wouldn't feel, that there would be nothing left for an omnipotent god to do, and not based on an emotional need.

There is nothing left to do. Understood. Why does the author assume that a god with no needs or desires has to have something to do? This seems like a very human trait that my 8 year old complains about daily. Its not something I would expect in a god about whom the author concludes is not anything comparable to human.

idav · Jun 26, 2016

Tumah said:
There is nothing left to do. Understood. Why does the author assume that a god with no needs or desires has to have something to do? This seems like a very human trait that my 8 year old complains about daily. Its not something I would expect in a god about whom the author concludes is not anything comparable to human.

Yeah good question. With omnipotence all things can be done so it doesn't make much sense to me to that anything would be a challenge. As it was presented in that scenario it is a challenge for god to destroy himself and try to reconcile itself. To me this would just be another scenario for the potential that is omnipotence. Some sort of why is in question, as to why an omnipotent being would ever need to create anything. Existence is argued which I sort of take to, in that existence is fundamental, the rest is god doing something of its own existence. It is argued, which I also tend to think, that we are the evidence of something being manifested from a source of some kind.

Tumah · Jun 26, 2016

idav said:
Yeah good question. With omnipotence all things can be done so it doesn't make much sense to me to that anything would be a challenge. As it was presented in that scenario it is a challenge for god to destroy himself and try to reconcile itself. To me this would just be another scenario for the potential that is omnipotence. Some sort of why is in question, as to why an omnipotent being would ever need to create anything. Existence is argued which I sort of take to, in that existence is fundamental, the rest is god doing something of its own existence. It is argued, which I also tend to think, that we are the evidence of something being manifested from a source of some kind.

I agree that there is some sort of why. But I kind of feel like, after establishing that its impossible to apply human concepts to the god, its a contradiction to then go on to give a reason why the god would do what it did. Like his analogy with the ball and the sun not being similar just because they were both round. Could we comprehend a reason any more than a mouse can comprehend why its running through a maze?

idav · Jun 26, 2016

Tumah said:
Could we comprehend a reason any more than a mouse can comprehend why its running through a maze?

I think so as long as there is legitimacy in theism and humans ability to connect to God. I think we are from from being rats in a maze but I could be wrong.

The best word I have for any reason for giving existence is something comparable to love, not that I can fathom what sort of love a non-human god might have. That is if we aren't just some sort of entertainment for god.

Tumah · Jun 27, 2016

idav said:
I think so as long as there is legitimacy in theism and humans ability to connect to God. I think we are from from being rats in a maze but I could be wrong.

I was just making a similar analogy to the author's about the ball and the sun.

The best word I have for any reason for giving existence is something comparable to love, not that I can fathom what sort of love a non-human god might have. That is if we aren't just some sort of entertainment for god.

Assuming we aren't some entertainment, if its so unfathomable to us then how can we call it love?

idav · Jun 27, 2016

Tumah said:
I was just making a similar analogy to the author's about the ball and the sun.

Assuming we aren't some entertainment, if its so unfathomable to us then how can we call it love?

By the fact that we exist and haven't been annihilated, yet, with the idea that there is a creation at all. Seeing life as a gift the question would be whether it's a selfish or selfless kind of love.

VioletVortex · Jul 19, 2016

I doubt that concept. I was sort of deist for a while, I believed that Satan was simply the force that created the existence we know, and that he did this by becoming the universe. I didn't believe that the spiritual was still existent at that time.

If this were the case, he definitely would not be trying to reunite himself into one being, as this would defeat the purpose of him having destroyed himself in the first place.

The reason I no longer believe what I did is because I don't really think that the spiritual can dissipate. Also, Satan killing himself to create a world would be against his own nature.

God Destroyed Himself?

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Being

Being

Well-Known Member

Being

Well-Known Member

Being

Veteran Member

Being

Veteran Member

qualiaphile

Being

Veteran Member

Being

Veteran Member

Being

Veteran Member

Being

Well-Known Member