a god who knew the answer to what would happen when he ceases to exist would indeed know everything and have everything. for that reason he would be unmovated to do anything or create anything. there would be no purpose to act in any way whatsoever. but a god who has one nagging question: "what happens if i cease to exist? might be motivated to find the answer in order to complete his knowledge.
So, he destroys himself… via the big bang.
And now… the universe is God, unconsciously reassembling himself.
I really find this theory fascinating, it’s from a book by the creator of Dilbert called ‘God’s Debris’ - it’s free, and can be found here
…I dont know how to explain the oragine of infinint diversity.
Id thought God to be a chaotic at times…
If God was a collective of all life,
i would think him to have gone mad,
because if you think everything, you will be thinking nothing,
because it is not even focus anymore
but id like to think it was Gods first time at creation,
so things always screw up at first,
so thats why life is hard and a struggle? i dunno…
There are two types of "God"s we’re talking about here.
The first is the God that the Catholic Church has come to know and love, the one that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, the one that is currently being followed. This is the God that deals with the people, he is a personality. He could be the body of God #2, who is the right God.
Whether or not God #1 is hypothetical, or actually sitting at the throne of the universe right now has yet to be determined.
Then there’s the other God, the one that is truth. This is the God that should be at the throne of the universe. He determines what is “good” and what is “bad”. If God #1 is not the same as God #2, then for all we know, going on a killing spree could be the “right” thing to do. Masturbation could be a saintly act, according to “right”. God #2 is more of a position, a characteristic, not a God. At least I don’t know if he’s a God. I–as well as all of humanity-- would like to believe that these Gods are the same person. But there is nothing that can reassure us that we didn’t create God #1 ourselves, I don’t think. Nothing that can eliminate EVERY doubt in our minds that the God #1 exists, and that he is RIGHT. We can ignore the doubts, and follow Him. But on second thought, we can’t, because he wants 100% devotion, and ignoring the fact that this thing could be wrong is not enough.
I would continue, but I’ve gone rambling, like the common newb philosopher, I imagine. Sorry I wasted yer memory on Plubius II’s first try at philosophy. This was kind of more for my own benefit than anyone else’s.
It’s an interesting perspective, but it makes serval assumptions…
First, it assumes that God is subject to the same feelings and emotions we have. What if God, because He is God, is allways satisfied with everything at any given moment. What if His actions were done for some other reason other than because “something motivated Him”.
I personaly feel we limit God when we make Him play “by our rules”. I’d like to think that God does not have to play by the rules of reason or physics — simply because He’s God and “because He can”.
I’m actually a Dilbert fan myself, and I’ve chatted with Scott Adams via email on numerous occasions.
Yeah… well it’s a thought experiment, so yeah… he assumes alot, but it’s interesting in this case. I really recommend the book… it’s not very long at all.
Scott Adams seems like a smart guy… what did you guys talk about?
I certainly hope BMW Guy wasn’t addressing me, because that’s almost exactly what I was trying to say, to a smaller extent.
What if God does not aggree with what we consider “right”? There is no proof that the morals and rules set by our perpective of this God person really is the right way to go, in the long term that is. Obviously, some of the actions have obvious consequences, and that’s how we figure that they’re bad. But what if, all the morals set by “Our perspective of this God person” are actualy set by us, and our views of the actions that are “bad” and “good”?
If BMW Guy wasn’t talking to me, however, I once again advise everyone to ignore the tender-foot, rambling, newb.
God self-destructing in the Big-Bang. Hadn’t thought of that one. Listen all, I realize there are holes in the Big-Bang theory, but this isn’t about that, at least I do not think so.
Exactly, it’s not about the big bang at all really. The author offers up an alternate explanation using some truth, and some bullshit. Part of the experiment is to see if you can pick out the bullshit.
It is an invaluable tool when it comes to real life application, as truth continues to slide to a more subjective death. Plus the story is a creative, interesting premise, if not slightly a plug for his longer book which of course is not free.
