The problems with being God.
Jun. 16th, 2004 09:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Well, first off, there's the question of which definition of "God" do you want to be? Do you want to be the Judeo-Islamic-Christian Definition of God, which would entail your utter control and creation of the universe, your purview and domain then being everything? Or do you want to be a god of the Helenic-Roman-Egyptian-Sumerian-&c. model, in which you are one of many, each seen as separate, and each with dominion over a facet of something, as it pertains to Mortal Life? Then there's the Diest approach, which says, yeah, you created the place, but you don't care, anymore, and you've left it to your own devices (The Dead-Beat Dad, of the Theological Set). And the Theist (Just because i like giving definitions) would be like the Judeo-&c., only allowing for multiple gods.
Then there's the Creator/Sustainer God model. It's a mixture of all of the above types, as there's care, and hatred, and Plans, and Free Will, because it sees god as the Substance of the Universe. Pantheism is the general term, here-used. This tends to be answered with panentheism: The idea that God is still apart from Its creation, but that a part of it Dwells Within Its creation. Not one-With, but necessary For the existence of all things. That could be described as a soul, for all things. There are problems with every model. Period. Every model will be incomplete, if it's going to be put into words that don't make people scream "Logical Contradiction!" But, as we've all noticed, i like playing my own advocate ^_^
To briefly repeat myself, if you believe in even the theoretical infinity that is used "to make things work," when performing operations in the so-called "Hard-Sciences," then you are accepting that it is, a priori, everything, every possible thing, because, if it's not, if it excludes even a single possiblity, then it is, again a priori-- that is by definition, or "Without prior [experiences]"-- Not Infinity. That said, something would have a very difficult time being partitely infinite, unless, of course it was also Infinte. Fractally, you see? What i mean is that if something is Omni_______, then that something must, in much simpler terms, be OmniEverything. Infinite. This definition of god supplies us with the idea that god isn't simply a part of you, or separate from you, or You. It's all of those things, at once, and so are you. And that brings us to the difficulties of this set...
Ever tried to focus on everything around you, all at the same time? It's hard, and, after a while, your head starts to hurt. How long that takes differs from person to person, but it will happen. Cyclical. It is possible (Gotta love that word) that we are limited, because we choose to be. Why would we choose to be? Because What's the point in Being Infinite? There is nothing there, at that point. You simply are, and are Everything. Gets kind of boring. Then there's the ability to be "fintite," which, by virtue of being infinite, you already are, and so you make little bits of you. Individuality.
If you work through that, back to said infinity, thusly growing and changing, and making yet more, in your enclosed infinity, you have Infinity, from the vantage of infinite individuals. And i find that an extremely interesting prospect.
The problems, elsewhere, in this, is that it's a comlpetely oppressive system, at first glance, and at its very core. By this system, you Are Infinite. Fuckin' Deal with it. There is, however, choice to deny that infinity, to disconnect from it, and not apprehend it. There is also the utter Fact that, somewhere, in all of this, none of this is real, and none of this is true.
Because if that permutation didn't exist, it wouldn't be infinity.
I've made my own brain hurt, enough, for the moment. If any of this came off as arrogant, or preachy, or pretentious, feel free to go fuck yourself. It's something i've been trying to put into words, since yesterday, in Contemporay Moral Issues, when he gave the example of something being (P * ~P). Logical contradictions. And i had wanted to tirade about Infinity, in the class, but couldn't think of the best way to relate it....... And, really, i still didn't...
Morally, you can hold many positions, of things being consequentially determined and deontologically determined, as long as you understand that each situation and moral decision is a contextual permutation of infinity, to be dealt with, as seems best, at the time, with all possible conisderations and evidences, or not.
There.
Later
Then there's the Creator/Sustainer God model. It's a mixture of all of the above types, as there's care, and hatred, and Plans, and Free Will, because it sees god as the Substance of the Universe. Pantheism is the general term, here-used. This tends to be answered with panentheism: The idea that God is still apart from Its creation, but that a part of it Dwells Within Its creation. Not one-With, but necessary For the existence of all things. That could be described as a soul, for all things. There are problems with every model. Period. Every model will be incomplete, if it's going to be put into words that don't make people scream "Logical Contradiction!" But, as we've all noticed, i like playing my own advocate ^_^
To briefly repeat myself, if you believe in even the theoretical infinity that is used "to make things work," when performing operations in the so-called "Hard-Sciences," then you are accepting that it is, a priori, everything, every possible thing, because, if it's not, if it excludes even a single possiblity, then it is, again a priori-- that is by definition, or "Without prior [experiences]"-- Not Infinity. That said, something would have a very difficult time being partitely infinite, unless, of course it was also Infinte. Fractally, you see? What i mean is that if something is Omni_______, then that something must, in much simpler terms, be OmniEverything. Infinite. This definition of god supplies us with the idea that god isn't simply a part of you, or separate from you, or You. It's all of those things, at once, and so are you. And that brings us to the difficulties of this set...
Ever tried to focus on everything around you, all at the same time? It's hard, and, after a while, your head starts to hurt. How long that takes differs from person to person, but it will happen. Cyclical. It is possible (Gotta love that word) that we are limited, because we choose to be. Why would we choose to be? Because What's the point in Being Infinite? There is nothing there, at that point. You simply are, and are Everything. Gets kind of boring. Then there's the ability to be "fintite," which, by virtue of being infinite, you already are, and so you make little bits of you. Individuality.
If you work through that, back to said infinity, thusly growing and changing, and making yet more, in your enclosed infinity, you have Infinity, from the vantage of infinite individuals. And i find that an extremely interesting prospect.
The problems, elsewhere, in this, is that it's a comlpetely oppressive system, at first glance, and at its very core. By this system, you Are Infinite. Fuckin' Deal with it. There is, however, choice to deny that infinity, to disconnect from it, and not apprehend it. There is also the utter Fact that, somewhere, in all of this, none of this is real, and none of this is true.
Because if that permutation didn't exist, it wouldn't be infinity.
I've made my own brain hurt, enough, for the moment. If any of this came off as arrogant, or preachy, or pretentious, feel free to go fuck yourself. It's something i've been trying to put into words, since yesterday, in Contemporay Moral Issues, when he gave the example of something being (P * ~P). Logical contradictions. And i had wanted to tirade about Infinity, in the class, but couldn't think of the best way to relate it....... And, really, i still didn't...
Morally, you can hold many positions, of things being consequentially determined and deontologically determined, as long as you understand that each situation and moral decision is a contextual permutation of infinity, to be dealt with, as seems best, at the time, with all possible conisderations and evidences, or not.
There.
Later
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-16 06:29 pm (UTC)Sir Julian Huxley
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
Voltaire
If God lived on earth, people would break his windows.
Jewish Proverb
no subject
*Nods*
Wait, wait
Date: 2004-06-16 09:36 pm (UTC)Re: Wait, wait
Only lots of ways to find out.
Math, and such
Date: 2004-06-16 09:46 pm (UTC)The numbers, if you compiled them, would equal infinity. But you can't compile them. That would take infinite time, or infinite application of exactly the right type.
A Ray is omnipresent if, and only if, it is slightly out of sync with the whole universe AND one side of the universe actually leads to the other side.
...in which case the universe isn't infinite and it's possible nothing is.
So Ray is infinite, but only in his own way. (Thanks, Ray!)
Re: Math, and such
Infinetesimally small is still, in its own very real way, infinite.
As was said, by definition, infinite is boundless, limitless. Not being everything is quite certainly a limit, in my book.
If the universe isn't infinte, then a lot of things have a lot of explaining to do.
These are the reasons i don't mind being called circular. One of the easiest ways to reach infinity, that.
Heh.
Re: Math, and such
Date: 2004-06-17 05:36 am (UTC)Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2004-06-17 05:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-17 05:39 am (UTC)Gods, I'm thinking the only reason I'm more coherent now that last night reading this is that I just dumped the shit-ton of sugar in a bowl of Cocoa Krispies on my bloodstream.
Re: Math, and such
Date: 2004-06-17 09:49 am (UTC)The ray is infinite. If it were ever to reach the end of the infinite space it's shooting off into and then turn around and come back the way it came (with an infinitely small variation) and continue to do this as it went back and forth, then it would fill all space. It would be omnipresent.
As it is, the ray, while infinite, plain old does not occupy the space it's pointing away from. There are gazillions of places you can go where that ray does not touch.
Now, given an infinite universe and an associative ordering system for said universe, you can make the case that the ray eventually touches things associated with all things, by law of Chaos Theory. Eventually, you could take 2' strips of the ray and stick them on top of each other and the modulations of where they went would make a picture of your own face.
But again, there's compilation from outside sources there.
Re: Wait, wait
Re: Math, and such
But it Does and it Is. By the very nature of the ray, you must understand the Starting point, in order to have that, against which you compare the understanding of the Ray. "It extends FROM Point A, off until...." To understand that implicit "From," there must be an understanding of that which came before it, thusly setting yourself up for the Infinite regress.
It remains infinite, by virtue of Needing that which it is NOT, to define that which it Is.
Ray is still infinite, whether he likes it or not,because even without that which came before, as a guide post... Then He's all that he knows. He's everything, and Limitless, as far as he knows, which is all that he knows, which is Everything.
And so on...
Re: Math, and such
no subject