- ThatFatAtheist Forums!
- →
- Thinker's Guild
- →
- Religion
- →
- Existence as God
| Welcome to our forum. This is a place for people to debate and rant about stuff. Enjoy! Click here to register. If you're already a member, you can log in here: |
| Existence as God | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 18 May 2012, 01:26 AM (343 Views) | |
| JeffroTheMan | 18 May 2012, 01:26 AM Post #1 |
|
Been thinking- not something I do too hard very often- and these are some of the ideas I've had. They may have roots in other thinkers that I don't know about. These ideas are also very incomplete. So if anything I say screams total 100% bullshit, let me know, and while I'll try to defend my position, let this be a preliminary statement of 'I might be completely out of my fucking mind and in need of verbal rape with this shit.' Dialogue from Xenogears, very minor spoilers that wouldn't matter to someone who hasn't played the game The above dialogue from Squaresoft's Xenogears provoked me to attempt to attribute as many of the traditional aspects of God to existence as I could. The four examples I came up with are as follows: Omniscience: Nature begins to know itself with consciousness and intelligence. While our knowledge is (obviously) incomplete- there is a conceptual 'maximum' of knowledge- which is when the universe and all its mysteries have been completely unraveled and there is nothing new to learn. This would be an omniscient nature- and perhaps there are other forms of intelligent life floating around that know things we don't and vice versa. Imagine if the collective knowledge of all intelligent life added up to a sum equal to the aforementioned 'maximum.' Would nature not then be completely aware of itself? Omnipotence: A nature that is totally aware of itself (i.e. the brand of 'omniscience' described above) would be totally aware of all possible actions and how to perform said actions. Creation of life: The anthropic principle- the very fact that we are, in fact, alive, implies that the universe is well-disposed towards the possibilities of life. Which means existence is capable of creating life. Creation of existence: It's an absurd idea that a thing can create itself- so if there is no supernatural creator and nature can't create itself- perhaps existence is eternal- an Ouroboros constantly expanding and contracting. On the premise that God is existence- the concept of 'sin' gains a whole new meaning. ‘Sin’ (on my understanding) fundamentally means a transgression against God- to the Yahweh picture of God, favoring the worldly over the spiritual. If God is viewed as Existence, a transgression against God is instead a transgression against what is worldly- I'm reminded of Nietzsche. A thought- if I call existence 'God' based on the above, do I have to alter my self-identification as an atheist? Is that a form of pantheism?
This is what the serpent says to Eve in convincing her to eat the forbidden fruit, causing the Fall (or Rise?) of Man. In other words, he is saying that God does not want Eve to eat the fruit because it would make humanity equal with God- the difference between God and man is the ability to know. In this light, I believe the serpent represents my conception of God- existence’s desire to know itself- and Yahweh is closer to Satan (when Satan is understood strictly as the antithesis to God) The Fall of Man can be seen as the transition from ape to man- the massive difference in intelligence. ‘Ye shall be as gods, knowing…’is what is important. Good and evil are human inventions (see Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals) but as Yahweh is an example of humanity creating gods in its own image, it makes sense for the book to attribute moral understanding to God. When God casts Adam and Eve out of Eden, instead of Man literally being tossed from a literal paradise, it’s more representative of the burdens of man’s newfound capacity to know- ‘ignorance is bliss,’ an incapacity for knowledge is the Garden of Eden.
This furthers the notion that Yahweh is antithetical to God. When people cooperate to further the end of discovering the universe (making nature omniscient)- Yahweh destroys their efforts, confounds their language, and scatters ‘them abroad upon the face of all the earth.’ Another thought- Yahweh (God) serves to divide people here. I wonder if this is a jab at religious differences? -That's all I've come up with tonight. As I continue re-reading the Bible, I'll be trying to apply this perspective to it- unless in the next few days this position is completely eviscerated, which I don't doubt is a huge possibility. |
| "Should've been a soldier, I could've fought and died/ but there's no revolution, so I bought a bride." -Bought a Bride, Brand New | |
 |
 
|
| Blargazaur | 18 May 2012, 02:13 AM Post #2 |
Cephalopodan of Zion
|
Take the binding of Issac, God told Abram to sacrifice his son as a testament to his loyalty to God, and in return, God will give Abram a land, a home, a people. Abram bound Issac on mount Moriah and as he was about to strike his son an angel grabbed his hand and stopped him. You could interpret this story in a non-literal way, for example: Abram represents a society in dire straits, God's offer is said society's option to be "immoral", to abandon some accepted laws, tradition etc. in favor of new ones that might bring it to new riches, while harming many of it's own people in the way. The angel stopping Abram is a collective conscience, realizing the atrocities they are/about to commit. If you read the bible like you would any other book, as a piece of literature, and recognize which part is metaphor and which is literal, it can make sense. The problems arise from people being oblivious to the difference between the two. |
|
|
|
| Yar | 18 May 2012, 05:47 AM Post #3 |
|
That is true, Bible can be and is often interpreted as a metaphorical piece of literature: a common style of storytelling in prehistoric times. But it's also the root of the problem: when something that is taken by many fanatics as strongly as an ultimate law can be interpreted in many way, misinterpreted even, it causes a lot of frustration and misery. Imagine if the criminal code was written in metaphors! |
|
|
|
| fdrake | 24 May 2012, 03:54 PM Post #4 |
|
Practical advice: Well you don't have to; it'd probably suffice to say that you were an atheist most of the time it came up. Addressing the actual question:
Are you suggesting that nature itself is in some larval stage of self awareness? Something which isn't very clear to me, from your post, is how you're dealing with the agency of God, as evident from his intelligible actions in the bible, and the potency of nature; its capability to effect, be effected, and with sentience - affect and be affected [insofar as we are "extensions" of nature]. In particular; if you're ascribing agency to nature in the above sense, rather than potency, you're probably a form of panentheist; conditional on the question of whether god/nature may "will"/effect/affect something which isn't already immanent. If God may not be the source of this sort of event, you're probably a pantheist - since then you've reduced the divine to the natural, if God may, and still has the other capacities you ascribe; you're probably a panentheist; since then you posit that the natural is a willed/agential extension, maybe even an expression, of the divine - "reducing" the natural to the divine. Edited by fdrake, 24 May 2012, 03:55 PM.
|
|
A stranger has come To share my room in the house not right in the head. | |
|
|
|
| Nemesis | 24 May 2012, 04:04 PM Post #5 |
Internet Zombie
|
It sounds far-fetched that such a metaphor would exist thousands of years ago. Why speak in such complicated metaphors when you are addressing everyone? Look at the stories told by Jesus. They were metaphorical, but they weren't hard to understand (especially compared to that one you explained). Edited by Nemesis, 24 May 2012, 04:06 PM.
|
| |
|
|
|
| JeffroTheMan | 24 May 2012, 04:07 PM Post #6 |
|
Basically, yes- and that the logical conclusion from this is that nature is completely capable of self-awareness.
In re-reading the Bible, I'm differentiating between Yahweh- a man-made god that doesn't actually exist- and an interpretation where existence itself has all the capabilities traditionally ascribed to God.
This seems closer to what I'm getting at. Many traditional aspects ascribed to deities have been discovered to be extraordinarily likely to have secular roots. |
| "Should've been a soldier, I could've fought and died/ but there's no revolution, so I bought a bride." -Bought a Bride, Brand New | |
|
|
|
| Tsukasa | 24 May 2012, 10:56 PM Post #7 |
|
i'm going to replace the word god, with cat that'll make things more interesting in this forum, take it away CLOWN FROM IT! |
 | |
|
|
|
| Blargazaur | 25 May 2012, 08:43 AM Post #8 |
|
Cephalopodan of Zion
|
Why? To make it a compelling story, and if they happen to learn a few good things, directly or subliminally, then yey. And Spartacus isn't as good a show as Game of Thrones is. |
|
|
|
| Nemesis | 25 May 2012, 07:37 PM Post #9 |
|
Internet Zombie
|
The people that wrote the Bible probably weren't smart enough for such complicated metaphors. Collective conscience? That's a concept from the late 19th century. Fuck Bible study! That shit ain't honest and objective and it doesn't try to be. Do you have examples of such complicated metaphors written in that period in other works by people that had the status that the ones that wrote the Bible had? Greek mythology uses easy metaphors that any idiot can understand and it doesn't do the "well, that's your interpretation of it and it can't be better or worse than another one" thing. Saying that all interpretations are equal is dishonest and in renders the story meaningless. When you speak to the masses, even in 2012, you don't fucking uses metaphors like that. The literal approach to that story is consistent with what Jesus says multiple times in the New Testament: abandon your family for your God, if necessary. It's also consistent with the rest of the Bible, where God/Jesus test a lot of people. Also, how can you be sure that was the metaphor and not literal? No one thinks everything there is literal, not one thinks everything there is metaphorical. If every interpretation can be true, then the Bible is meaningless. For an artwork or a story, there is only one true interpretation and there are other interpretations that come close. You can't interpret the Matrix as a film that has the only goal to show the world how cool black trench coats and sunglasses are. If you interpret something as something it isn't, then you give that something a different meaning than intended. You add your own shit to it. That's "the Bible, according to Blargazaur", not "the Bible". Edited by Nemesis, 25 May 2012, 07:38 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Blargazaur | 26 May 2012, 04:11 AM Post #10 |
|
Cephalopodan of Zion
|
Some of the stories that are in the bible come from people telling them over and over again for centuries. What happens when you do that? The story changes, every time someone tells it he adds his own thing to it. Is it that far fetched to think that by the time the stories got to those who wrote the bible the stories were already flavored with thousands of years worth of literal interpretation? Of added content? |
|
|
|
| Nemesis | 26 May 2012, 06:41 AM Post #11 |
|
Internet Zombie
|
Still won't result in angels being the collective conscience of the world. In this case, the literal interpretation fits much better, for reasons I already mentioned. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| fdrake | 26 May 2012, 03:03 PM Post #12 |
|
It's probably more productive to make sense of the bible as you see fit anyway. Updating its myths/concepts, so long as an eye is kept for the historical interpretations and influence of the text, shouldn't do any harm at any rate. |
|
A stranger has come To share my room in the house not right in the head. | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Religion · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Edge | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 3:55 PM May 24
|
edge created by tiptopolive of IDS