Religion in Science-Fiction?

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I suspect that this also is a logical fallacy' date=' or just playing games with word definitions.[/quote']

 

"I am what I am & that's all that I am." (Popeye the Sailor... man.)

 

 

There is something wrong with being everything.

 

What I am attempting to nail down is an omni-quantified God, but I can't. That's the whole point, really: that this quantification of God (as all) doesn't work.

 

explication:

 

We each have our own different identity. A difference (not no difference:rolleyes:) in identity, flags a comparison between two things that are not equivalent (nor interchangeable, neither).

 

I assume that God is everything, unlimited, universal, contained by nothing... etc. Logically, God is the set of all things... the one (and only) omni-predicated "being". I assume this is the identity of God in order to test it with a solution that includes my own identity.

 

God's identity should include my identity, too, right? Wrong. Why?

 

In contrast to God, the main property of my identity is that it is limited to me. The limit of my identity is where I begin/end. Where I begin/end suffers from the problem of my boundaries.

 

My boundaries can be summed up into 3 parts: me/?/not me.

 

If God is everything, is God me, too? The formulation of the question itself is flawed. The answer is not just no, but, "please ask a different question." Why?

 

Being everything is not a valid, quality being. Why?

 

At the root, being "truly everything" just doesn't make sense. God is supposed to be both the universe & the things in it... but that is not logical. The universe is composed of all universal beings, but it is also distinct from them.

 

God is attempting to do both & failing. Being God thusly (as simultaneously both everything & all individuals) is a paradox.

 

Nothing is that, literally. That is what nothing is.

 

If God is anything, whatever God is, God is something else than that.

 

 

~ Mister E ("Mode: modest.")

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

"I am what I am & that's all that I am." (Popeye the Sailor... man.)

 

 

There is something wrong with being everything.

 

What I am attempting to nail down is an omni-quantified God, but I can't. That's the whole point, really: that this quantification of God (as all) doesn't work.

 

explication:

 

We each have our own different identity. A difference (not no difference:rolleyes:) in identity, flags a comparison between two things that are not equivalent (nor interchangeable, neither).

 

I assume that God is everything, unlimited, universal, contained by nothing... etc. Logically, God is the set of all things... the one (and only) omni-predicated "being". I assume this is the identity of God in order to test it with a solution that includes my own identity.

 

God's identity should include my identity, too, right? Wrong. Why?

 

In contrast to God, the main property of my identity is that it is limited to me. The limit of my identity is where I begin/end. Where I begin/end suffers from the problem of my boundaries.

 

My boundaries can be summed up into 3 parts: me/?/not me.

 

If God is everything, is God me, too? The formulation of the question itself is flawed. The answer is not just no, but, "please ask a different question." Why?

 

Being everything is not a valid, quality being. Why?

 

At the root, being "truly everything" just doesn't make sense. God is supposed to be both the universe & the things in it... but that is not logical. The universe is composed of all universal beings, but it is also distinct from them.

 

God is attempting to do both & failing. Being God thusly (as simultaneously both everything & all individuals) is a paradox.

 

Nothing is that, literally. That is what nothing is.

 

If God is anything, whatever God is, God is something else than that.

 

 

~ Mister E ("Mode: modest.")

And that is why deep thought needed 7 Billion Years to come up with "42"!

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

"I am what I am & that's all that I am." (Popeye the Sailor... man.)

 

 

There is something wrong with being everything.

 

What I am attempting to nail down is an omni-quantified God, but I can't. That's the whole point, really: that this quantification of God (as all) doesn't work.

 

explication:

 

We each have our own different identity. A difference (not no difference:rolleyes:) in identity, flags a comparison between two things that are not equivalent (nor interchangeable, neither).

 

I assume that God is everything, unlimited, universal, contained by nothing... etc. Logically, God is the set of all things... the one (and only) omni-predicated "being". I assume this is the identity of God in order to test it with a solution that includes my own identity.

 

God's identity should include my identity, too, right? Wrong. Why?

 

In contrast to God, the main property of my identity is that it is limited to me. The limit of my identity is where I begin/end. Where I begin/end suffers from the problem of my boundaries.

 

My boundaries can be summed up into 3 parts: me/?/not me.

 

If God is everything, is God me, too? The formulation of the question itself is flawed. The answer is not just no, but, "please ask a different question." Why?

 

Being everything is not a valid, quality being. Why?

 

At the root, being "truly everything" just doesn't make sense. God is supposed to be both the universe & the things in it... but that is not logical. The universe is composed of all universal beings, but it is also distinct from them.

 

God is attempting to do both & failing. Being God thusly (as simultaneously both everything & all individuals) is a paradox.

 

Nothing is that, literally. That is what nothing is.

 

If God is anything, whatever God is, God is something else than that.

 

 

~ Mister E ("Mode: modest.")

 

Logically, God cannot exist if you go by all the bullshit wordplays like this that people like to use.

 

I am not defending religion; but "I don't understand this therefore it can't be true and therefore I am going to look down on anyone who disagrees" is just as illogical as "my magic invisible sky person is better than your magic invisible sky person." And yes, I see the irony, as I am likely offending both atheists and deists in equal measure with this statement

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

For all we know, Quantum mechanics may someday prove that we are all figments of God's delirious imagination

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Logically, God cannot exist if you go by all the bullshit wordplays like this that people like to use.

 

I am not defending religion; but "I don't understand this therefore it can't be true and therefore I am going to look down on anyone who disagrees" is just as illogical as "my magic invisible sky person is better than your magic invisible sky person." And yes, I see the irony, as I am likely offending both atheists and deists in equal measure with this statement

 

Nobody is looking down on anybody, here. Hell, I live in OZ. Where are you?

 

I provided an ontological argument that was based on omni-predication. Really, except for the fact that God is classically ascribed omni-predications, my arguments never actually touch on God.

 

So, this isn't really about about God, anymore. It is about the elusiveness of God.

 

The problem isn't that people lack understanding. Lacking understanding is something that may be corrected.

 

No. "God" is not understandable (quite unlike any other incomprehensibility). Anybody who says otherwise is unborn.

 

"BS wordplay"?

 

The word/notion "God" itself is beyond ambiguous. It's nonsensical. There are certain words that actually indicate knowable things (e.g., "Moon") that are ambiguous because they hang in space w/o context.

 

Talking about God is an exercise in futility...

 

... but it is worth thinking about. These aren't just words. There are so many things wrong with making the assumption that something is just wrong because it is wrong. The least of which is the laziness of not even bothering to try to figure out why/how (the way/a way/any way/no way/almost no way...etc.) it is wrong.

 

Q: Do you think a robot (machine class of minds) should be allowed to perform an exorcism?

 

A: Only if the offensive possessing spirit is El Diablo Robotico (the Devil's robot).

 

 

~ Mister Exorcism ("In the name of...uh...[*click-chick*]. I cast they hence! Be gone, daemon, spawn of ... uh... [*click-chick*]. Your power is deactivated.")

 

~ Mister E ("Jedi droids are the future.")

[Alverant]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I think that is a logical fallacy myself.

 

Someone once presented to me the idea that, if God knows exactly what we will do in every decision we ever make, then we do not actually have free will.

 

I say that just knowing what someone will do does not "bind them" to doing it; you have predicted their actions but their actions are still their own.

 

I think the same is true here - God could have all the power he wants to change things, and still decide not to, for reasons that we probably cannot comprehend.

 

But then I'm agnostic and really don't care one way or the other.

Omnipotent means having ALL the power. Free-will is power. Therefore if we have free will, then there cannot be omnipotence. If our free will can be snatched away, then we never had it to begin with.

[Alverant]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

The word/notion "God" itself is beyond ambiguous. It's nonsensical. There are certain words that actually indicate knowable things (e.g., "Moon") that are ambiguous because they hang in space w/o context.

 

Talking about God is an exercise in futility...

Then so is belief and worship of said god, to say nothing of using it as a moral guide.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

"I am what I am & that's all that I am." (Popeye the Sailor... man.)

 

 

There is something wrong with being everything.

 

What I am attempting to nail down is an omni-quantified God, but I can't. That's the whole point, really: that this quantification of God (as all) doesn't work.

 

explication:

 

We each have our own different identity. A difference (not no difference:rolleyes:) in identity, flags a comparison between two things that are not equivalent (nor interchangeable, neither).

 

I assume that God is everything, unlimited, universal, contained by nothing... etc. Logically, God is the set of all things... the one (and only) omni-predicated "being". I assume this is the identity of God in order to test it with a solution that includes my own identity.

 

God's identity should include my identity, too, right? Wrong. Why?

 

In contrast to God, the main property of my identity is that it is limited to me. The limit of my identity is where I begin/end. Where I begin/end suffers from the problem of my boundaries.

 

My boundaries can be summed up into 3 parts: me/?/not me.

 

If God is everything, is God me, too? The formulation of the question itself is flawed. The answer is not just no, but, "please ask a different question." Why?

 

Being everything is not a valid, quality being. Why?

 

At the root, being "truly everything" just doesn't make sense. God is supposed to be both the universe & the things in it... but that is not logical. The universe is composed of all universal beings, but it is also distinct from them.

 

God is attempting to do both & failing. Being God thusly (as simultaneously both everything & all individuals) is a paradox.

 

Nothing is that, literally. That is what nothing is.

 

If God is anything, whatever God is, God is something else than that.

 

 

~ Mister E ("Mode: modest.")

 

This is a bit of sophistry, although you tangentially touch upon what I find to be the key answer in your first sentence.

 

First (and least importantly), your execution of the logic is flawed and inconsistent. It operates from false premises. Consider the number .7, which is a member of the set of numbers between 0 and 1. .7's "identity" can be expressed using the same (unhelpful and undefined) rubric you used for yourself: it/?/not it.

 

Yet .7 is still a member, a part of, the set of numbers between 0 and 1. It is essentially "identical" to the (infinite) other numbers of the same set, each of which equally constitutes the full "identity" of what it means to be the set of numbers of 0 and 1 (which is in turn can be considered a mere expression or part of infinitely more sets of infinite or finite numbers).

 

 

Secondly, and I feel more importantly, you're using a rigged game.

 

"Let us use reason and logic, with clearly understood rules and restrictions of induction, deduction, and whathaveyou, to discuss the nature of God."

"Let's!"

"First, let us define our terms."

"It's only logical to do so!"

"Very well. How shall we define God?"

"Classically! Omnipotent, omniscient, the entire universe, you know?"

"Very well. God is a being who is simultaneously everything, who exists outside of time, who is all knowing, who is all powerful, etc."

"Wait, doesn't all powerful mean that nothing can restrain it?"

"Well, yes of course."

"Then how can we talk about something all powerful within a system of rules and restrictions which render statements "If X is true then Y MUST Be true," since something all powerful can cheerfully ignore the must even though X is true and it follows that Y should also be true?"

"Oh. Uh....."

 

Essentially, that definition of God places God outside the realm of logical proofs. God, understood in that way, is beyond logic. Logic is irrelevant, although you might find it useful as a tool for trying to understand that which cannot be understood (at least logically).

 

Note that this doesn't require that God exists. It's just like trying to pronounce the name of a man who has never had a name.

 

I've been resisting posting this for days.

[Ravor]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Seems to me that having the ability to negate freewill on a whim does not actually require the Divine to exercise that power. Just because one can do something doesn't mean that one should.

 

*EDIT*

 

If I remember correctly, freewill is depicted as a gift of love towards humanity, in part because the love of a drone is meaningless to the Divine.

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I assume that God is everything' date=' unlimited, universal, contained by nothing... etc. Logically, God is the set of all things... the one (and only) omni-predicated "being". I assume this is the identity of God in order to test it with a solution that includes my own identity. [/quote']

Except that you seem to have confused omnipresence ("God is everywhere") with pantheism ("God is everything / everything is God").

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

By the way, what do you call someone who does not deny the existence of gods but is extremely cynical about the idea they can be influenced by prayer or ritual? "Deism" is the closest I've found, but doesn't seem to quite fit.

[McCoy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

For all we know' date=' Quantum mechanics may someday prove that we are all figments of God's delirious imagination [/quote']

That is a Hindu/Buddhist position, that what we perceive as reality is no more than a dream of sleeping Vishnu.

[Ravor]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Well, I simply call myself an Agnoistic and don't really worry about titles, although I do remember one television preacher that I saw while visiting my ex-father-in-law several years back, don't remember his name but he held a bible at arm's lenght and basically told his flock that although God could bend the laws of the universe he created he never would and if the preacher were to drop the bible it would always fall to the floor no matter how hard anyone prayed and no matter how faithful you were an angel would never pull you back out of harm's way if you happened to step in front of a speeding bus.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Well' date=' I simply call myself an Agnoistic and don't really worry about titles, although I do remember one television preacher that I saw while visiting my ex-father-in-law several years back, don't remember his name but he held a bible at arm's lenght and basically told his flock that although God [b']could[/b] bend the laws of the universe he created he never would and if the preacher were to drop the bible it would always fall to the floor no matter how hard anyone prayed and no matter how faithful you were an angel would never pull you back out of harm's way if you happened to step in front of a speeding bus.

That would mean you have to accept scientific findings even if it contardicts what the bible says. Ultimately it would contradict the bible it self, because it accepts that those who wrote it might not have been touched/guided by god at all.

[dmjalund]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

my thoughts on God and intevention always goes to the phrase "My kingdom is not of this world"

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

mine has been best summed up by a bumper sticker, "My God is too big to fit in your religion"

[Ravor]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Although I personally have no problem with the idea that the world's religious texts aren't the result of the Divine, you are making way too much of a stretch in claiming that "God doesn't interfer with universal laws." is the same as "The Holy Bible is a fraud!", believe it or not, Christianity itself doesn't relay on the idea that the Bible is the literal truth. Sure, some branches of the faith do make that claim but then again I've listened to my fair share of rabid athiest morons as well.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I'll just point out that theism and religion aren't quite synonymous--one could be a theist without having a religious belief system. All "theist" means is that one believes that some form of higher order being(s) exists. In the abstract, it's not at all an absurd or outrageous belief to hold, even from an atheistic standpoint--there are so many things beyond our realm of knowledge, that the existence of beings who are much older, much more intelligent, much more advanced, and more powerful than humanity, somewhere inside (or outside) the untold trillions of cubic light years of our universe could even be seen as highly plausible. It's only when one makes specific claims about the qualities or characteristics of such a being(or beings) that one begins to venture into the realm of specific religious doctrine.

[Vondy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I think that is a logical fallacy myself.

 

Someone once presented to me the idea that, if God knows exactly what we will do in every decision we ever make, then we do not actually have free will.

 

I say that just knowing what someone will do does not "bind them" to doing it; you have predicted their actions but their actions are still their own.

 

I think the same is true here - God could have all the power he wants to change things, and still decide not to, for reasons that we probably cannot comprehend.

 

But then I'm agnostic and really don't care one way or the other.

 

Or, more simply, knowing what you will decide is not the same as deciding it for you.

[Vondy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I'll just point out that theism and religion aren't quite synonymous--one could be a theist without having a religious belief system. All "theist" means is that one believes that some form of higher order being(s) exists. In the abstract' date=' it's not at all an absurd or outrageous belief to hold, even from an atheistic standpoint--there are so many things beyond our realm of knowledge, that the existence of beings who are much older, much more intelligent, much more advanced, and more powerful than humanity, somewhere inside (or outside) the untold trillions of cubic light years of our universe could even be seen as highly plausible. It's only when one makes specific claims about the qualities or characteristics of such a being(or beings) that one begins to venture into the realm of specific religious doctrine.[/quote']

 

Of course, Maimonides, maintained you could only describe God in terms of what He is not. Ergo, Apophatic theology, more commonly known as "negative theology."

[John T]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

There was one film in wich they recieved a message from outer space and build a big...something' date=' beacuse they were sent the plans for it in the message.[/quote']

Not sure if this was mentioned in the intervening pages, but... the film (and novel by Carl Sagan) "Contact".

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Not sure if this was mentioned in the intervening pages' date=' but... the film (and novel by Carl Sagan) "Contact".

It was, but thanks anyway.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

The word/notion "God" itself is beyond ambiguous. It's nonsensical. There are certain words that actually indicate knowable things (e.g., "Moon") that are ambiguous because they hang in space w/o context.

 

Talking about God is an exercise in futility...

 

Then so is belief...

 

This is a complex problem with no simple solution.

 

People should figure things out for themselves.

 

... and worship of said god...

 

Worship is a form of love. 'Love' is a four letter word for:

 

"incorporating the transcendence of another into one's own transcendence."

 

[&]

 

"a self-destructive false sense of security."

 

Love is paradoxically both unconditional & must be shared (otherwise, is it merely a one-sided infatuation).

 

To be in love with God is to be in one paradox with another. How romantically eccentric is that? If the whole of it wasn't an inherently inconceivable notion in the first place, I'd call such a relationship, "ideal."

 

to say nothing of using it as a moral guide.

 

That is what Jesus* is for (i.e., The Golden Rule). God** (i.e., Mysterious Ways) doesn't do morality. God only does commandments (strategic speech acts). Both qualify as ethical material; but only one is technically moral.

 

* among others: e.g., "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." (note: this, Kant's first formulation of a categorical imperative, is more powerful than the Golden Rule... which is the first instance of moral ethical material in the Bible).

 

**of Moses & the rest.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

This is a bit of sophistry...

 

You've got my attention.

 

... although you tangentially touch upon what I find to be the key answer in your first sentence.

 

Which is either: "There is something wrong with being everything."

 

... or the Popeye quote.

 

First (and least importantly)' date=' your execution of the logic is flawed and inconsistent. It operates from false premises. [/quote']

 

Awesome.

 

Consider the number .7' date=' which is a member of the set of numbers between 0 and 1. .7's "identity" can be expressed using the same (unhelpful and undefined) rubric you used for yourself: it/?/not it.[/quote']

 

it/?/not it is not equivalent to it.

 

It is it is a tautology.

 

Identity isn't really one of my premises. It is a fundamental axiomatic rule: A ≡ A.

 

And it/?/not it is how I describe the problem of its boundaries... not its identity.

 

All the different infinitely fine particulates (e.i., even those of a particular set of particulates) have unique identities that distinguish them apart from each other. Otherwise they wouldn't be different.

 

Yet .7 is still a member' date=' a part of, the set of numbers between 0 and 1. It is essentially "identical" to the (infinite) other numbers of the same set, each of which equally constitutes the full "identity" of what it means to be the set of numbers of 0 and 1 (which is in turn can be considered a mere expression or part of infinitely more sets of infinite or finite numbers).[/quote']

 

Yes, the set of all real numbers between zero & one includes seven tenths (& all other numbers >0 & <1... to infinite fineness).

 

Yes, all those infinitely fine numbers (i.e., the set that is >0 & <1) have that (i.e., the set that is >0 & <1) in common.

 

I have a problem with my sense of what you are taking as essential to identity.

 

A set is distinguished by its elements. If a set has no elements, then it cannot be distinguished. If a set's elements are exactly like those of another set (no more & no less) then the two sets are identical.

 

Sharing membership to a set does not make two different sets identical. It just makes those two different sets fundamental elements of the set they belong to.

 

Secondly, and I feel more importantly, you're using a rigged game.

 

"Let us use reason and logic, with clearly understood rules and restrictions of induction, deduction, and whathaveyou, to discuss the nature of God."

"Let's!"

"First, let us define our terms."

"It's only logical to do so!"

"Very well. How shall we define God?"

"Classically! Omnipotent, omniscient, the entire universe, you know?"

"Very well. God is a being who is simultaneously everything, who exists outside of time, who is all knowing, who is all powerful, etc."

"Wait, doesn't all powerful mean that nothing can restrain it?"

"Well, yes of course."

"Then how can we talk about something all powerful within a system of rules and restrictions which render statements "If X is true then Y MUST Be true," since something all powerful can cheerfully ignore the must even though X is true and it follows that Y should also be true?"

"Oh. Uh....."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6BdXYxH8a0

 

Essentially' date=' that definition of God places God outside the realm of logical proofs. God, understood in that way, is beyond logic. Logic is irrelevant, although you might find it useful as a tool for trying to understand that which cannot be understood (at least logically).[/quote']

 

First, God's omni-predication is not one of my premises.

 

0) I took a risk & abducted God's omni-predication (using it like a premise).

1) Then I made it into an assumption (for reductio).

2) I made deductions from the assumption.

3) The concluded deductions contradicted themselves.

4) I postulated a contradiction of the originally abducted assumption (which can also be used like a premise).

 

God's assumed omni-predication:

[it is true that... ]God is all sets of things (simultaneously, the infinite set & all its elemental sets... including the nothing set with no elements).

 

With this I easily deduced that God's assumed identity was self-contradictory.

 

Reductio ad absurbum... I postulate that a contradiction of God's assumed identity is true.

 

God's post-assumption contradiction of omni-predication postulate:

[it is NOT true that... ]God is all sets of things (simultaneously, the infinite set & all its elemental sets... including the nothing set with no elements).

 

Note that this doesn't require that God exists. It's just like trying to pronounce the name of a man who has never had a name.

 

Whatever it is that I have been working on, it is not God.

 

I've been resisting posting this for days.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Of course' date=' Maimonides, maintained you could only describe God in terms of what He is not. Ergo, Apophatic theology, more commonly known as "negative theology."[/quote']

 

Food for thought.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay.

 

Can we steer the thread back towards Religion and Science-Fiction?