ITT we define god

[fomenter]

YES FLATLAND! Thanks, Ratty.

I was going to reference that, but couldn't remember if anyone on here would know what the fuck I'm talking about.

Questioning Reality Old Skool

haven't thought about or read that book in ages

[Golden Applesauce]

It makes sense in a poetic, oxymoronic, paradoxial word-game sort of way, sure.

Does it answer the question?  Hell no!

Couldn't a God be "outside" of time?

If there is an outside of time, then there is a perspective from which our subjective idea of what is happening now, what already happened, and what is about to happen is all viewable.  Which means that the future (from our perspective) is already "filled in" from this outside-of-time perspective.  So if there is an outside of time, then destiny is in full force and the idea of "choice" is illusory (since from the out-of-time perspective our "choices" have already been made.)  The only thing that can change what we call "the future" is whatever is outside of time, or God in this case.  Which is perfectly acceptable and non-contradictory if you are, say, a Calvinist.

[hunter s.durden]

Maybe, maybe not. Again human brain, God concept. As you said "from our perspective." 

I definitely don't think that time and choice have to be one way or the other. Back to Dr. Manhattan, he saw what was going to happen and did it anyway, whether or not he liked it was irrelevant. It happened. Period. But that didn't mean when time was on him from our perspective that he didn't have choice. He just already knew what that choice would be.

[Golden Applesauce]

"Always was" makes no sense whatsoever; it's the equivalent of "just because I say so".

I disagree - "Always was" makes perfect sense if things aren't required to have beginnings.  The only "problem" with this is that if things aren't required to have beginnings, then there isn't a requirement for there to be a "First Cause" or "Prime Mover" any more.

Note that if some things don't have a beginning, then history would have to stretch backwards to negative infinity.  The answer to the question "When did WWI begin?" is a point in time. The answer to the question "When did the pre-WWI time period end?" is a point in time.  There is no answer to "When did the pre-WWI time period begin?" in the case of history stretching backwards to negative infinity - the pre-WWI time period always was.

[Golden Applesauce]

Maybe, maybe not. Again human brain, God concept. As you said "from our perspective." 

I definitely don't think that time and choice have to be one way or the other. Back to Dr. Manhattan, he saw what was going to happen and did it anyway, whether or not he liked it was irrelevant. It happened. Period. But that didn't mean when time was on him from our perspective that he didn't have choice. He just already knew what that choice would be.

Saying that someone already knows what a choice would be is exactly the same as saying that the choice is predetermined - it is known (determined) ahead of time (pre-).

[hunter s.durden]

Saying that someone already knows what a choice would be is exactly the same as saying that the choice is predetermined - it is known (determined) ahead of time (pre-).

Not really.
Would you rather: Eat ice cream or get all fingers cut off?
You can be a smart ass and say finger, but you and I both know what you'd pick.

Now to God every choice is that simple for him to see.

[Golden Applesauce]

Saying that someone already knows what a choice would be is exactly the same as saying that the choice is predetermined - it is known (determined) ahead of time (pre-).

Not really.
Would you rather: Eat ice cream or get all fingers cut off?
You can be a smart ass and say finger, but you and I both know what you'd pick.

Now to God every choice is that simple for him to see.

That's only an argument for free will and predetermination coexisting if you make the assumption that free will exists in the "decision" to not get all your fingers chopped off.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I tend to look at the freewill issue this way:

We exist in (or under the illusion of) linear time. We make decisions, cause effects, the universe changes. We cut down a tree the tree falls. Millennia later it's a tiny little puddle of oil buried under years of sediment and continental drift and shit.

God sees the oil now.

If we decide not to cut down the tree. God doesn't see the oil.

But, either way, he knows, from the outset. Whether it's going to be worth drilling there or not.

[Honey]

What's wrong with a little circular reasoning?  No beginning, no end, just like a circle.  We may live sequentially, but that doesn't mean we have to always think in linear, does it?

Maybe God is spinning ad-hoc theories out of his head?  & we live there within the paradox?  We begin at a new reference point every friggin' day.

[Thurnez Isa]

God's alright
Its his fucking fans that are idiots

[Honey]

ain't that the truth?

[Richter]

God's alright
Its his fucking fans that are idiots

:Mittens:

THIS.

[Telarus]

Thurnez nailed that one.


A couple asides: I consider God (at least partially) a linguistic hallucination. Let's get deeper than that a second, tho.... take, "God is a Verb" for example. Let's examine that game-rule by contrasting it with another instance of a Linguistic Hallucination masquerading as "a real thing-noun":

*Holds up a fist* I have a Fist. When I uncurl my fingers, what happens to the Fist?







Oh, and I just ran across an article that addresses that whole "outside of time" dealie....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16796-fasterthanlight-tachyons-might-be-impossible-after-all.html

There's a huge semantic flaw in the first paragraph of the "Emerging time" section, but other than that, it was an interesting read.

[Idiot]

god is three tic tacs