This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The Crazy God (My Hypothesis)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
I had an interesting idea that reconciles the fact that a God could exist possibly, with the fact that if he did exist, he hasn't had any influence on Earth at all in the slightest.
Here is my hypothesis :
We all know well the idea that this God fella is infinitely power, and he knows everything, and sees everything. Consider this then - just because he knows everything doesn't mean he understands everything. Imagine a mind swarmed by information about every single atom in the universe every millisecond. He, like a little infant seeing its first rays of light, wouldn't know what all this stuff means since its all flooding into him at once, and it drives him insane. He has infinite power, but he doesn't understand how to use his powers, so they are useless to him. Ultimately, this madness makes him powerless.
Discuss. (also, I suppose it would probably make
this guy the Devil
)
Post by
blademeld
If he had infinite power, won't he or she be able to filter out the information?
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
272830
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
If he had infinite power, won't he or she be able to filter out the information?
No. You could have massive muscles but if you were in a coma you wouldn't be able to use them. If the information drowned him to the point he forgot how powerful he was, it could disable him from using his power to filter it.
Gorefiend, just because you know something doesn't mean you understand it. The baby example was pointing at the example that babies see plenty of light rays, but that doesn't mean that even though they know they're getting these light rays, they don't understand what they mean and it doesn't help them make sense of things.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
Either way, in a scientific view, I like the God I found in the book "Calculating God" it's a science fiction where the God is simply a being from the previous universe.
The god was able to survive through the implosion of the past universe and could alter events to mould the world, however, the god was not all knowing or all powerful.
So in essence, in this definition, this god was a god that could simply surpass the boundaries of our own limitations and had a hand in forming the current world.
I like this version better than your version on the basis you'd have to be a moron to create a universe that you couldn't handle.
Also, if the god doesn't directly influence Earth, he or she may be a god to another world, but to us, he or she does not exist in any form.
Post by
TheMediator
Similar to me knowing about motorcycles, but necessarily knowing how to ride one.
Yeah. You can tell a computer 2+2=4, you can put every single fact in the universe into a computer, but it still wouldn't understand what any of that means. You'd have to program a computer to understand things, because computers think in terms of logic, and 2+2=4 wouldn't mean anything unless you made it understand what it logically means. Which is my point, something could know everything in the universe but not understand what it means in the slightest, and be possibly overwhelmed by all the data.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
223674
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150866
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
The problem you have with this argument is the very definition of omniscient
omniscient– adjective 1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
By definition he would not only know all things, but percieve all things as well. In order to percieve something, you must first understand and comprehend it. Sorry, but your point sir is moot.
False.
Dictionary definition of perceive : to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses. Nothing you said in your top chunk of text conflicts with what I said. However, your second block of text assumes that just because you are aware or identify something means you understand something, which is wrong.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
223674
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Well, I'm not sure how to tackle them. I mean, your point about computers, I disagree that a computer is inferior to a human mind. They're different, a human mind is much better at making associations between things, whereas a computer is infinitely better at storing information and making calculations. Also, why do you think humans necessarily have to be inferior to God? If humans have free will (although I disagree with that), and God can't interfere with free will, does he lack free will? I would say in a way that makes us better.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.