Welcome to TPF. :up:

We pandeists have to stick together.

It would explain why we feel so alone, so abandoned perhaps? — CountVictorClimacusIII

At what point do we start to feel alone and abandoned? Because I get the sense that's an older child thing, not a baby thing or a toddler thing and, furthermore, occurs whether one is raised a deist, an atheist, or anything else for that matter.

the omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang to become the Universe. Why? Because God already knew everything possible except what would be due to his own lack of existence. Therefore, He would need to end it in order to complete his knowledge. — CountVictorClimacusIII

How f**ked up is that! And how human!

omnipotent God annihilated himself — CountVictorClimacusIII

Atlantis syndrome?

God would now exist as a combination of the smallest units of energy — CountVictorClimacusIII

That desperate huh?

feel alone and abandoned? — Kenosha Kid

Ok! I am.

we should act as bridges — CountVictorClimacusIII

What about floods, hurricanes, earthquakes?

What are your thoughts on this idea? Are we born from a negation - God's denial of Himself and his subsequent self-annihilation? — CountVictorClimacusIII

I read the book. And I suspect that Adams wrote with tongue-in-cheek. The God's Debris hypothesis has some things in common with PanTheism and PanEnDeism. But it treats the Creator of our world as a depressed deity, who commits suicide in anticipation of reincarnation as a physical universe. Unlike Jesus, who gave his mortal life for the benefit of mankind, but rose again as the immortal Christ. Anyway, I don't take the amusing story seriously. :joke:

I like it, but my understanding of All has me thinking All could be both before and after at the same time, and not. Plus, while my understanding of All forces me to admit that we are special to All in one or more particulars, we really aren't, even in those particulars, so every time it comes up I'm a little repulsed by it. After all, I'm stuck with us and can't just take my sentience off to more inviting parts of All any old time I feel like it. Whenever someone's notion of "God" had us as teacher's pet, it makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Familiarity breeds contempt?

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If anything, more complexity (such as god/s) are a less probable explanation for the universe.

The god in the thought experiment doesn't seem any more complicated than the standard gods though.

It would explain why we feel so alone, so abandoned perhaps? — CountVictorClimacusIII

It's the new expansive view of the cosmos that had displaced us as the center of the universe that might explain some of this anxiety. The distances against the limit of the speed of light is kind of depressing. The vastness of space, the quantity of worlds out there and being stuck by gravity to a single orb in an uncrossable ocean. Further that these distances are growing.

No one is texting us from across the expanse. Where is the universe's social media feed?

I like the notion that humans left an embodied world (God) as they increasingly developed the memory mediated self. Maybe animals still live in the embodied world, where the dissection of the self and the world has not happened. The dawn of consciousness is a kind of curse but since we're already here, this is the party we have to attend. Might as well build a god (a mummy daddy) to replace the one lost.

I like the notion that humans left an embodied world (God) as they increasingly developed the memory mediated self. Maybe animals still live in the embodied world, where the dissection of the self and the world has not happened. The dawn of consciousness is a kind of curse but since we're already here, this is the party we have to attend. Might as well build a god (a mummy daddy) to replace the one lost. — Nils Loc

I like that. I often wonder, however, if it's not so much that we have something animals don't, or that we somehow gained something through evolution and have "grown" or "progressed" or are somehow "better" but, rather, that animals have something we used to have, and we lost it: Where they lack the anxiety and the feeling of being alone because they retain a sense of being a part of the whole? God is what they appreciate being a part of, and not something separate.

Even if I'm wrong on that, I do think the "feeling alone" or "abandoned" is more a misperception, or an "illness" or a failure to appreciate, a lack of gratitude, amazement, wonder and love. I know there are some people who seem to be good with our condition. Some children (not all) and some of those touchy-feely yogi types (unless they are bullshitting us).

The idea that a philosopher or physicist or a intellectual deep thinker or a bible thumper or a person on top of current events must have an empty feeling of aloneness or abandonment simply because ignorance is bliss, and they are not ignorant is, really, the height of arrogance. It's like the old phrase "If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention." Is that really true? If one has a more objective, long-term view of life, maybe all the shit that should make one angry just doesn't. Sit in the stands and watch the show, or get in the arena a fight. But to sit back and wring ones hands in consternation with some "woe is me" BS and "why hast thou forsaken me?" seems pretty weak.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Are we born from a negation - God's denial of Himself and his subsequent self-annihilation? — CountVictorClimacusIII

Apparently, pandeism is a belated materialist/physicalist variation on the tzimtzum theme (i.e. creation = creator/s abscondus).

Jesus, who gave his mortal life for the benefit of mankind, but rose again as the immortal Christ. Anyway, I don't take the amusing story seriously — Gnomon

Nothing about vicarious redemption through human sacrifice (crucifixion) I've ever found "amusing", and stopped taking that "story" seriously (literally) over forty years ago.

It's the new expansive view of the cosmos that had displaced us as the center of the universe that might explain some of this anxiety. The distances against the limit of the speed of light is kind of depressing. The vastness of space, the quantity of worlds out there and being stuck by gravity to a single orb in an uncrossable ocean. Further that these distances are growing. — Nils Loc

:up: We have our mediocrity (principle) to thank for our (existential) freedom. To paraphrase the Persian poet Rumi: we are not only teardrops in an ocean but an ocean is every drop.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Are we born from a negation - God's denial of Himself and his subsequent self-annihilation? — CountVictorClimacusIII

It's not an unfamiliar idea. I can't really engage with it however as I don't accept the proposition that a God existed/exists. I also don't feel any sense of abandonment or aloneness at the thought of being without theistic supervision. There is no hole or deficit in creation that needs filling. To me this idea reads a bit like a Marvel adaptation of deism.

@180 Proof

Thanks for the welcome. Looking forward to the discussions in here. I've been lurking for a little while and only recently decided to create an account.

@Kenosha Kid

I should have been more clear, I think the older child to adult. Also yes, it would be something more felt if raised as a deist, and then perhaps through own research and enquiry, after a change of mind / heart followed by the inevitable questions to ponder.

@TheMadFool

Ah of course, I forgot the floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. How careless of me :wink:

@Gnomon

Agreed, it reads like tongue-in-cheek. However, the idea is still there. Infinitely interesting idea, I think at least. One I've thought about :chin:

@Nils Loc

The dawn of consciousness is a kind of curse but since we're already here, this is the party we have to attend. Might as well build a god (a mummy daddy) to replace the one lost.

I like this idea. That it's up to us to create our own new "God" now, or to become "Gods" ourselves to push our species forward into something greater. A new rapture, with a newfound vigor and zest for life and the possible, for our future in this infinite cosmos.

@Tom Storm

To me this idea reads a bit like a Marvel adaptation of deism.

Would make for a banging origin story :lol:

This is paralleled by a section in Scott Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe", where he talks about a planet that is surrounded by the dusty space particles of a blown-up supercomputer. The supercomputer is incapable of doing anything, but thinking; and it telepathically induced the population of the planet it surrounds to develop space travel readiness in ten years, and a weapon that will blow up the entire universe. The space dust had been miffed off about something, he probably was nasty to begin with, got nastier, and he was blown up before his nast got really out of hand. Thus he became dust, but his genius lingered on.

Then the story develops from here.

What you described in the OP, Vicomte, is interesting in several aspects:
1. god rises from its own ashes like the Phoenix.
2. God feels he has nothing more to offer to himself, the world, the universe. So he has to reinvent himself.
3. Reinventing himself consciously is impossible, since he is omnipotent.
4. Having lived an eternity, he knows that eternity bears boredom, unbelievably stupefying and painful boredom. So he gets rid of his mind by eating himself.
5. Getting reintroduced, dust particle-by-dust particle, provides him with growing pleasures.
6. But basically he is doing it to get laid just once more again. After all, we have no evidence of sex in his life after he lost his virginity.

But basically he is doing it to get laid just once more again. After all, we have no evidence of sex in his life after he lost his virginity. — god must be atheist

Fucking awesome! I was just thinking something similar to that but let it wander out of my head. Thanks.

I was just thinking something similar to that but let it wander out of my head. — James Riley

I never let sex wander out of my head. If it goes out, I make it promise to be home by six.

I never let sex wander out of my head. If it goes out, I make it promise to be home by six. — god must be atheist

I remember those days. :blush:

Also yes, it would be something more felt if raised as a deist, and then perhaps through own research and enquiry, after a change of mind / heart followed by the inevitable questions to ponder. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Is that based on anything, other than being in service of Exploding God Theory?

@Kenosha Kid

Subjective, personal experience perhaps. Some of Nietzsche's Will to Power too I'd say. God being dead and all... us humans now left with the task of providing a new rapture for ourselves. To keep us in awe. To inspire. I think the idea of it all falling on us to create our own meaning, and perhaps working towards an apex of humankind / human potential is inspiring.

Still makes you wonder if there is / was some sort of Creator. I suppose we'll find out for sure when we're dead.

The idea of God annihilating himself in order to get laid again is infinitely amusing lol. thanks.

It's incoherent. Adams was not, of course, a serious thinker. But anyway, if we can apply a bit of rigor to his humour-prioritizing thought experiment, then what's he asking us to think really doesn't make sense.

For instance:

the omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang to become the Universe. — CountVictorClimacusIII

If he became the universe, then he would not have annihilated himself but transformed himself.

And similarly:

Why? Because God already knew everything possible except what would be due to his own lack of existence. Therefore, He would need to end it in order to complete his knowledge. — CountVictorClimacusIII

God knows 'everything'. Not some things. Everything. So that would include knowledge of all true counterfactuals, such as "x would be the case if I did not exist" etc. Thus he would not need to do anything to complete his knowledge. Again, an omniscient being does not have incomplete knowledge. And an omnipotent being does not 'need' to do anything. The idea that God, to achieve X, would 'need' to do Y, assumes that there are laws that apply to and constrain God. But that's a contradiction, for nothing constrains an omnipotent being. So Adams is simply trading on the fact that most people don't fully understand just what being omnipotent involves.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Are we born from a negation - God's denial of Himself and his subsequent self-annihilation? — CountVictorClimacusIII

The idea makes no sense at all. Not even a tiny bit.

This is a prison and we're being punished. That's the truth, a truth easily discoverable by reasoned reflection.

An omnipotent being can do anything. And as such God can bestow any benefit on us he wants. And there is no harm so firmly bonded to any benefit that God could not have given us the benefit without the harm. And an omnipotent omnibenevolent being would give innocent beings all the benefits they could - so, all the benefits - without any harms.

Yet here we are, living in ignorance in a dangerous world. What follows? What follows from these two facts:

1. If God exists, he would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. We are living in ignorance in a dangerous world?

This:

3. Therefore, if God exists, we are not innocent

And as

4. God exists

This follows:

5. We are not innocent

The purpose for which we are living lives here, then, is not to facilitate God's quest for knowledge, but to satisfy God's desire that we suffer. Simple.

This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. Which actually dovetails nicely with some elements of Platonism, i.e. the 'unforgetting' (anamnesis) of the state of omniscience that obtained prior to 'falling' in to carnal existence. Note well however the mention of 'taboo' in the title.

3. Therefore, if God exists, we are not innocent

And as

4. God exists

5. We are not innocent

The purpose for which we are living lives here, then, is not to facilitate God's quest for knowledge, but to satisfy God's desire that we suffer. Simple.

This is interesting. Reminds me of a line of dialogue from one of Terrance Malick's more recent films (Knight of Cups): "If you are unhappy, you shouldn't take it as a sign of God's disfavor. Just the contrary. Might be the very sign He loves you. He shows His love not by helping avoid suffering, but by sending you suffering, by keeping you there. To suffer binds you to something higher than yourself, higher than your own will. Takes you from the world to find what lies beyond it."

Assuming 4. is correct, perhaps the suffering we experience, or this life in general is some sort of test. Perhaps God is asking us what makes us worthy of his love? Like a parent pushing his child to be all they can be, to strive towards the apex of their own innate human potential to be all they can be.

Interesting, I have looked into a couple of Watts' monologues in the past, I may have to add this book to my reading list. Thanks.

Reminds me of a line of dialogue from one of Terrance Malick's more recent films (Knight of Cups): "If you are unhappy, you shouldn't take it as a sign of God's disfavor. Just the contrary. Might be the very sign He loves you. He shows His love not by helping avoid suffering, but by sending you suffering, by keeping you there. To suffer binds you to something higher than yourself, higher than your own will. Takes you from the world to find what lies beyond it." — CountVictorClimacusIII

I have not seen the film as he seems to have gone up his own fundament since Badlands. But I find the view expressed in the quotes to be the opposite of what is the case. If you are unhappy, you most certainly should take it as a sign of God's disfavor, for that's precisely what it is. Why else would he let you be unhappy? He can make you happy with ease, and so that's exactly what he'd do if he liked you. So he doesn't like you. He doesn't love you at all. Loathes, not loves.

"To suffer binds you to something higher than yourself, higher than your own will. Takes you from the world to find what lies beyond it."

God's omnipotent so if he wanted you to be bound to something higher than yourself, he could make that happen just like that without visiting any suffering on you at all. To think otherwise is to think God can't do things - but he can do anything. So, even if suffering can have beneficial consequences for its victim, these two facts remain: a) God could have given you the benefit 'without' the suffering and b) God wants you to suffer, not for the benefits, but for its own sake, for otherwise why are you suffering? If God exists and you're suffering, you can know that God wants you to suffer what you're suffering and that it's not the act of a parent keen to teach his offspring a difficult lesson, but the act of a retributivist who wants you to get your comeuppence (and get it you are).

perhaps the suffering we experience, or this life in general is some sort of test. — CountVictorClimacusIII

That cannot be so. For God knows everything, so what does he need to test us for? What does he need to find out that he doesn't already know? There is nothing he does not know, and thus no purpose to any test. God is not, then, testing us. Plus what if I want to know for how long a child can stand on hot coals? Am I good person if, to satisfy my curiousity, I place an innocent child on hot coals? Clearly not. Well, then a fortiori God would not do such a terrible thing. We are not being tested and we can be as sure of that as we can that being good does not involve being a callous sadist.

Perhaps God is asking us what makes us worthy of his love? Like a parent pushing his child to be all they can be, to strive towards the apex of their own innate human potential to be all they can be. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Again, that would make God a total arsehole. God hates us. Not loves us. Hates us. God doesn't want us to love him or want to make us go through this or that ordeal so that we might somehow come to love him - that sounds like an incredibly abusive relationship, a 'treat-em mean, keep em-keen' mentality that it is insulting to attribute to an all-good person. God is not trying to foster a relationship with us; he's ending one. This - this here, this life - is what happens when you break up with God. God's dumped you. And now he's cutting-up your wardrobe and slashing your tires.