Mymosh, the self-begotten

[Gorgias]

Such a being would not be God. The only thing properly referred to as God is the first principle of all things.

Right. And that’s where “doing one’s homework” comes in. Aquinas would be a good start, but he’s also a bit of a tough read. Perhaps Feser’s book on Aquinas might be a good place to begin the effort…

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Hmmm. Back from an involuntary absence.

OK; so, an allegory for some (but not all) facets of reality.

All the important portions of reality. Thinking, sapient beings (though not sentient one), who are able to reason, who can ponder their existence.

Can’t say that a “computer scientist” or a “programmer” or “experimenter” can be considered “omnipotent”, except for an amazingly impotent use of the word…

To be able to do everything over his creation is as “omnipotent” vis-a-vis the creation as it gets. Being able to monitor the inhabitants, change them at will is also “omnipotent”.

Such a being would not be God. The only thing properly referred to as God is the first principle of all things. It’s not just a reference to the creator of our universe (if by our universe we refer to just our bubble of space time in some multiverse).

You cannot define anything into existence. In that computer-world the programmer is the equivalent of God. Has full power over his creation, can modify the world, cannot be touched by the inhabitants of the world.

Now we might get back to the actual substance of the problem:

1. should he reveal his existence to the world?
2. should he create an afterlife where the godlies will be rewarded for their adoration?
3. should he create another afterlife for the ungodlies, who will be punished for their lack of belief?
4. since the experiment costs a lot of money for the university, what will happen when the experiment will have to terminated, when the end of the world comes?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Such a being would not be God. The only thing properly referred to as God is the first principle of all things. It’s not just a reference to the creator of our universe (if by our universe we refer to just our bubble of space time in some multiverse).

You cannot define anything into existence. In that computer-world the programmer is the equivalent of God. Has full power over his creation, can modify the world, cannot be touched by the inhabitants of the world.

I’m not defining anything into existence. I could accuse you of trying to simply define Mymosh as God when he’s not. Mymosh is at most what we would refer to as a demiurge. He is not what we would call God.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I’m not defining anything into existence. I could accuse you of trying to simply define Mymosh as God when he’s not. Mymosh is at most what we would refer to as a demiurge. He is not what we would call God.

It is an allegory!!!

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I’m not defining anything into existence. I could accuse you of trying to simply define Mymosh as God when he’s not. Mymosh is at most what we would refer to as a demiurge. He is not what we would call God.

It is an allegory!!!

That a created, finite, temporal, conditioned, not eternal being could be God?

Let me refrain for a second, because I myself, in an attempt to illustrate how God is not in reality but transcends reality is kind of like the computer that a simulation runs on. The characters in The Sims aren’t going to find the computer running the simulation in the simulation. I use this analogy mostly for those who compare needing to find evidence for God in the same manner they’d find evidence for unicorns. “Does the simulation need a computer” is a different question than “do unicorns exist in the simulation?”

However, allegory and analogies have limits. The computer in my analogy is itself not the first principle but a created object existing as a contingent part of another level of reality. That is not what theists mean when they speak of the divinity. We refer to the first principle of all that is, not just the creator of any given part of it.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

That a created, finite, temporal, conditioned, not eternal being could be God?

All those adjectives are your concoctions and are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that there is this entity, who (or which) creates its own world or creation, and has full power over the creation. The rest is all window dressing.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

That a created, finite, temporal, conditioned, not eternal being could be God?

All those adjectives are your concoctions and are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that there is this entity, who (or which) creates its own world or creation, and has full power over the creation. The rest is all window dressing.

Hardly. This is a fundamental distinction theists have made for at least two thousand years. The arguments for the existence of God all terminate necessarily in that which is absolutely one, eternal, immutable, necessary, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good act of pure being which is not a member of any genus of being. Mymosh, by having certain attributes, is none of this, and so if we were to apply the cosmological arguments they would not terminate at him but continue on until we reach the Being as described. You fundamentally misunderstand what we even mean when we speak of God in his Divine Nature, as if he’s a person or a character or a thing.

I’m not going to be told essential philosophical and theological points regarding the Ultimate Reality are “window dressing.”

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I’m not going to be told essential philosophical and theological points regarding the Ultimate Reality are “window dressing.”

I would have liked to conduct a mutually interesting conversation. I guess it is impossible to find a common ground on which a conversation could be started. Looks like we are “doomed” to stare at each other across an unbridgeable abyss. Very sad. Best wishes.

 

[Gorgias]

All the important portions of reality.

Says you.

Thinking, sapient beings (though not sentient one), who are able to reason, who can ponder their existence.

Reality includes physical creation, doesn’t it? Does he, in this allegory? Or does he merely create a simulation of reality?

To be able to do everything over his creation is as “omnipotent” vis-a-vis the creation as it gets.

Physically create it, then? Create it ex nihilo? Imbue it with eternal life?

See… he’s missing some really important parts of ‘omnipotence’.

Moreover, you’re not asserting “omnipotence”, but some sort of partial – yet not complete – power. Omnipotence asserts complete power, not partial power. Attempting to say otherwise is really a misuse of the term.

If you want to say “here’s an metaphor, however incomplete, for omnipotence”, that’d be fair. Then we could discuss not only the ways in which it represents facets of omnipotence, but also the ways in which it fails to do so.

In that computer-world the programmer is the equivalent of God.

No. He is a ‘creator’ of sorts, taking existing materials and re-fashioning them, but that’s not what we assert about God.

The only thing that matters is that there is this entity, who (or which) creates its own world or creation, and has full power over the creation. The rest is all window dressing.

Not so. What we refer to as God is omnipotent. Full stop. Not “partially omnipotent” or “powerful in a particular domain”, but fully omnipotent. Short of that, we’re not simulating God – we’re merely talking about a subset of His attributes.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Reality includes physical creation, doesn’t it? Does he, in this allegory? Or does he merely create a simulation of reality?

What is the difference? We could be “brains in a vat” or we could exist only in the Matrix - for all we know. There is no way to find out. As such what the inhabitant of the world perceive IS the reality.

Physically create it, then? Create it ex nihilo? Imbue it with eternal life?

Ex nihilo? Eternal life? What are these? And can you demonstrate them?

See… he’s missing some really important parts of ‘omnipotence’.

Omnipotence is undefined. The creator can change all the fundamental attributes of his created world. (It is all programming.) Just like God could change the physical attributes (allegedly), the programmer / creator can change the everything within his creation - certainly (not just allegedly). In the computer the world can have as many dimensions as the programmer wants to, can even change the time-flow, not just the speed, but also the direction. Can imbue the beings with all sorts of “magical” abilities. Much more omnipotent - certainly, than God is allegedly.

No. He is a ‘creator’ of sorts, taking existing materials and re-fashioning them, but that’s not what we assert about God.

What you assert is fine, but you need more than an empty assertion.

Not so. What we refer to as God is omnipotent. Full stop. Not “partially omnipotent” or “powerful in a particular domain”, but fully omnipotent. Short of that, we’re not simulating God – we’re merely talking about a subset of His attributes.

You are welcome to refer to God as you wish. As soon as you can demonstrate that your reference is correct, you will be taken seriously.

Of course all of these objections are mere technicalities, they do not affect the REAL questions. What kind of behavior would you expect from the creator?

1. should he reveal his existence to the world?
2. should he create an afterlife where the godlies will be rewarded for their adoration?
3. should he create another afterlife for the ungodlies, who will be punished for their lack of belief?
4. since the experiment costs a lot of money for the university, what will happen when the experiment will have to be terminated, when the end of the world comes?

Here is the question: Starting with a hypothesis - namely that world is crated by a creator (called God - with all sorts of interesting attributes), what can we assert about this creator? By observing the creation only.

1. We can assert that the creator is independent from our physical world - both spatially and temporally.
2. We can assert that the creator was able to perform this creative act.

These all follow logically and rationally from the original hypothesis.

What else can you add to this?